Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Viewpoint
  • Published:

Breast cancer screening: the questions answered

Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology volume 9, pages 599–605 (2012)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Early detection of cancer has long been thought to be the first step towards eradicating the mortality associated with the disease. National screening programmes for breast cancer have been implemented in many countries. However, there is controversy regarding the efficacy and optimal methods of screening, which is regularly discussed in articles, at conferences and is apparent in conflicting guidelines. In this article, Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology asks four experts their opinions on some of the pressing questions associated with breast cancer screening.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Nelson, H. D. et al. Screening for breast cancer: an update for the U. S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann. Intern. Med. 151, 727–737 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Berrington de González, A. & Reeves, G. Mammographic screening before age 50 years in the UK: comparison of the radiation risks with the mortality benefits. Br. J. Cancer 93, 590–596 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Lin, C. et al. Locally advanced breast cancers are more likely to present as Interval Cancers: results from the I-SPY 1 TRIAL (CALGB 150007/150012, ACRIN 6657, InterSPORE Trial). Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 132, 871–879 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. van Ravesteyn, N. T. et al. Tipping the balance of benefits and harms to favor screening mammography starting at age 40 years: a comparative modeling study of risk. Ann. Intern. Med. 156, 609–617 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. US National Library of Medicine. ClinicalTrials.gov [online], (2011).

  6. House of Commons Hansard. Written answers. HEALTH Breast cancer screening [online], (2011).

  7. US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for breast cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann. Intern. Med. 151, 716–726 (2009).

  8. Boyd, N. F. et al. Breast tissue composition and susceptibility to breast cancer. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 102, 1224–1237 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Glasziou, P. & Houssami, N. The evidence base for breast cancer screening. Prev. Med. 53, 100–102 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Mandelblatt, J. S. et al. Effects of mammography screening under different screening schedules: model estimates of potential benefits and harms. Ann. Intern. Med. 151, 738–747 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Harris, R., Yeatts, J. & Kinsinger, L. Breast cancer screening for women ages 50 to 69 years a systematic review of observational evidence. Prev. Med. 53, 108–114 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Schopper, D. & de Wolf, C. How effective are breast cancer screening programmes by mammography? Review of the current evidence. Eur. J. Cancer 45, 1916–1923 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Mathieu, E. et al. Helping women make choices about mammography screening: an online randomized trial of a decision aid for 40-year-old women. Patient Educ. Couns. 81, 63–72 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Autier, P., Héry, C., Haukka, J., Boniol, M. & Byrnes, G. Advanced breast cancer and breast cancer mortality in randomized controlled trials on mammography screening. J. Clin. Oncol. 27, 5919–5923 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Autier, P. et al. Advanced breast cancer incidence following population-based mammographic screening. Ann. Oncol. 22, 1726–1735 (2011).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Hubbard, R. A. et al. Cumulative probability of false-positive recall or biopsy recommendation after 10 years of screening mammography: a cohort study. Ann. Intern. Med. 155, 481–492 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Nyström, L. et al. Long-term effects of mammography screening: updated overview of the Swedish randomised trials. Lancet 359, 909–919 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines)® Breast Cancer. Version 1.2012 [online], (2012).

  19. Kuhl, C. K. et al. Mammography, breast ultrasound, and magnetic resonance imaging for surveillance of women at high familial risk for breast cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 23: 8469–8476 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Warner, E. et al. Systematic review: using magnetic resonance imaging to screen women at high risk for breast cancer. Ann. Intern. Med. 148, 671–679 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Forrest, P. Breast cancer screening: Report to the Health Ministers of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. (HM Stationery Office, London, 1987).

  22. [No authors listed] The trouble with screening. Lancet 373, 1223 (2009).

  23. Mathieu, E. et al. Informed choice in mammography screening: a randomized trial of a decision aid for 70-year-old women. Arch. Intern. Med. 167, 2039–2046 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Vainio, H. & Bianchini, F. (Eds) IARC Handbooks of Cancer Prevention. Volume 7. Breast Cancer Screening. (IARC Press, Lyon, 2002).

  25. Autier, P., Boniol, M., Gavin, A. & Vatten, L. J. Breast cancer mortality in neighbouring European countries with different levels of screening but similar access to treatment: trend analysis of WHO mortality database. BMJ 343, d4411 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Läärä, E., Day, N. E. & Hakama, M. Trends in mortality from cervical cancer in the Nordic countries: association with organized screening programmes. Lancet 1, 1247–1249 (1987).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Esserman, L., Shieh, Y. & Thompson, I. Rethinking screening for breast cancer and prostate cancer. JAMA 302, 1685–1692 (2009).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Berry, D. A. et al. Effect of screening and adjuvant therapy on mortality from breast cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 353, 1784–1792 (2005).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Kalager, M., Adami H. O., Bretthauer, M. & Tamimi, R. M. Overdiagnosis of invasive breast cancer due to mammography screening: results from the Norwegian screening program. Ann. Intern. Med. 156, 491–499 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Hendrick, R. E. & Helvie, M. A. Mammography screening: a new estimate of number needed to screen to prevent one breast cancer death. AJR Am. J. Roentgenol. 198, 723–728 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Biesheuvel, C., Barratt, A., Howard, K., Houssami, N. & Irwig, L. Effects of study methods and biases on estimates of invasive breast cancer overdetection with mammography screening: a systematic review. Lancet Oncol. 8, 1129–1138 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Virnig, B. A., Tuttle, T. M., Shamliyan, T. & Kane, R. L. Ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: A systematic review of incidence, treatment and outcomes. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 102, 170–178 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Welch, H. G. & Black, W. C. Overdiagnosis in cancer. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 102, 605–613 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Esserman, L. J. et al. Impact of mammographic screening on the detection of good and poor prognosis breast cancers. Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 130, 725–734 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Ozanne, E. M. et al. Characterizing the impact of 25 years of DCIS treatment. Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 129, 165–173 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Esserman, L. & Thompson, I. Solving the overdiagnosis dilemma. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 102, 582–583 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Elmore, J. G. & Fletcher, S. W. Overdiagnosis in breast cancer screening: time to tackle an underappreciated harm. Ann. Intern. Med. 156, 536–537 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Jensen, R. A. & Page, D. L. Ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: impact of pathology on therapeutic decisions. Am. J. Surg. Pathol. 27, 828–831 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Evans, A. et al. Lesion size is a major determinant of the mammographic features of ductal carcinoma in situ: findings from the Sloane Project. Clin. Radiol. 65, 181–184 (2010).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Badve, S. S. et al. Correlation between the DCIS score and traditional clinicopathologic features in the prospectively designed E5194 clinical validation study [abstract]. J. Clin. Oncol. 30 (Suppl.), a1005 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  41. Kerlikowske, K. et al. Comparative effectiveness of digital versus film-screen mammography in community practice in the United States: a cohort study. Ann. Intern. Med. 155, 493–502 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. de Gelder, R. et al. Interpreting overdiagnosis estimates in population-based mammography screening. Epidemiol. Rev. 33, 111–121 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Mandelson, M. T. et al. Breast density as a predictor of mammographic detection: comparison of interval- and screen-detected cancers. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 92, 1081–1087 (2000).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Esserman, L. J. et al. Biologic markers determine both the risk and the timing of recurrence in breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 129, 607–616 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Schousboe, J. T., Kerlikowske, K., Loh, A. & Cummings, S. R. Personalizing mammography by breast density and other risk factors for breast cancer: analysis of health benefits and cost-effectiveness. Ann. Intern. Med. 155, 10–20 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Kerlikowske, K. & Phipps, A. I. Breast density influences tumor subtypes and tumor aggressiveness. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 103, 1143–1145 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Quanstrum, K. H. & Hayward, R. A. Lessons from the mammography wars. N. Engl. J. Med. 363, 1076–1077 (2010).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Bewley, S. Effect of population-based screening on breast cancer mortality. Lancet 379, 1296 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Ciatto, S. et al. Proportional incidence and radiological review of large (T2+) breast cancers as surrogate indicators of screening programme performance. Eur. Radiol. 22, 1250–1254 (2012).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Author notes

  1. P. Autierphilippe.autier@i-pri.org

  2. L. J. Essermanlaura.esserman@ucsfmedctr.org

  3. C. I. Flowerschristopher.flowers@moffitt.org

  4. N. Houssaminehmath@med.usyd.edu.au

Authors and Affiliations

  1. International Prevention Research Institute (iPRI), 95 Cours Lafayette, Lyon, 69006, France

    Philippe Autier

  2. UCSF Carol Franc Buck Breast Care Center, 1600 Divisadero Box 1710, San Francisco, 94115, CA, USA

    Laura J. Esserman

  3. H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center & Research Institute, 12902 Magnolia Drive, Tampa, 33612, FL, USA

    Chris I. Flowers

  4. Screening & Test Evaluation Program, School of Public Health (A27), Sydney Medical School, University of Sydney, Sydney, 2006, Australia

    Nehmat Houssami

Authors
  1. Philippe Autier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Laura J. Esserman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Chris I. Flowers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Nehmat Houssami
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

N. Houssami receives funding via National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) program grant 633003 to the Screening & Test Evaluation Program. The other authors declare no competing interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Autier, P., Esserman, L., Flowers, C. et al. Breast cancer screening: the questions answered. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 9, 599–605 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1038/nrclinonc.2012.126

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nrclinonc.2012.126

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing: Cancer

Sign up for the Nature Briefing: Cancer newsletter — what matters in cancer research, free to your inbox weekly.

Get what matters in cancer research, free to your inbox weekly. Sign up for Nature Briefing: Cancer