Cribado, incidencia y mortalidad en condados de Estados Unidos | 31 AGO 15

Cáncer de mama

Existe una creciente preocupación acerca de que el cribado lleve involuntariamente a un exceso de diagnósticos, por la identificación de tumores de mama pequeños, indolentes o regresivos que de otra manera no se hubieran convertido en clínicamente aparentes.
Autor/a: Charles Harding, Francesco Pompei, Dmitriy Burmistrov, GilbertWelch, MD, Rediet Abebe, Richard Wilson JAMA Intern Med. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.3043. Breast Cancer Screening, Incidence, and Mortality Across US Counties
INDICE:  1.  | 2. 

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.
2. Carter JL, Coletti RJ, Harris RP. Quantifying and monitoring overdiagnosis in cancer screening: a systematic review of methods. BMJ. 2015;350:g7773.
3. Barratt A. Overdiagnosis in mammography screening: a 45 year journey from shadowy idea to acknowledged reality. BMJ. 2015;350:h867.
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.
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.
6. Biller-Andorno N, Jüni P. Abolishing mammography screening programs? a iew from the Swiss Medical Board. N Engl J Med. 2014;370 (21):1965-1967.
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.
10. Greenlee RT, Murray T, Bolden S, Wingo PA. Cancer statistics, 2000. CA Cancer J Clin. 2000;50 (1):7-33.
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 AmStat Assoc. 2007; 102(478):474-486. doi:10.1198 /016214506000001293.
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. Amethod for partitioning cancer mortality trends by factors associated with diagnosis: an application to female breast cancer. J Clin Epidemiol. 1994;47 (12):1451-1461.
15. Kalager M, ZelenM, Langmark F, Adami H-O. Effect of screening mammography on breast-cancer mortality in Norway. N Engl J Med. 2010;363(13):1203-1210.
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.
17. Carlson RW, Anderson BO, BensingerW, et al; National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN practice guidelines for breast cancer. Oncology (Williston Park). 2000;14(11A):33-49.
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 StatMethodol. 2003;65(1):95-114. doi:10.1111/1467-9868.00374.
21. Greenland S, Robins J. Invited commentary: ecologic studies—biases, misconceptions, and counterexamples. Am J Epidemiol. 1994;139(8): 747-760.
22. Wood S. Generalized Additive Models: An IntroductionWith 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 StatMethodol. 2011;73(1):3-36.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-9868.2010.00749.x. 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.
26. Pasek J, Tahk A, Culter G, SchwemmleM. Weights:Weighting andWeighted Statistics. http: //cran.r-project.org/web/packages/weights/index .html. Accessed February 20, 2015.
27. Rodgers JL, NicewanderWA.  Thirteen ways to look at the correlation coefficient. Am Stat. 1988;42 (1):59-66. doi:10.1080/00031305.1988.10475524.
28. Taylor R. Interpretation of the correlation coefficient: a basic review. J Diagn Med Sonogr. 1990;6(1):35-39. doi:10.1177 /875647939000600106.
29. Esserman L, Shieh Y, Thompson I. Rethinking screening for breast cancer and prostate cancer. JAMA. 2009;302(15):1685-1692.
30. Bleyer A,Welch HG. Efect of three decades of screening mammography on breast-cancer incidence. N Engl J Med. 2012;367(21):1998-2005.
31. AndersonWF, 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.
32. Greenland S, Morgenstern H. Ecological bias, confounding, and effectmodification. Int J Epidemiol. 1989;18(1):269-274.
33. Wakefield J. Ecologic studies revisited. Annu Rev Public Health. 2008;29:75-90.
34. Puliti D, Duffy SW,Miccinesi G, et al; EUROSCREE NWorking Group. Overdiagnosis in mammographic screening for breast cancer in Europe: a literature review. J Med Screen. 2012;19 (suppl 1):42-56.
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.
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.
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.

 

Comentarios

Para ver los comentarios de sus colegas o para expresar su opinión debe ingresar con su cuenta de IntraMed.

AAIP RNBD
Términos y condiciones de uso | Política de privacidad | Todos los derechos reservados | Copyright 1997-2024