[Introduction of a mammography screening program in Germany. Consideration of benefits and risks].
For women between 50 and 70 years of age, X-ray mammography presently represents the most effective method for early breast cancer detection. It is commonly accepted that quality assured mammography examinations conducted at regular intervals can reduce mortality from breast cancer. In the year 2002, the German Bundestag agreed to the implementation of a mammography screening program for Germany based on the European guidelines. The effectiveness of a mammography screening program is controversially discussed and two of the most commonly cited hazards are the occurrence of false-positive results and the so-called overdiagnosis. Another issue of criticism is the radiation risk due to the mammography examinations. However, in women aged 50-70 years the radiation risk has no substantial importance. In contrast to the present situation in Germany in which opportunistic screening is widespread, standardized quality assured screening will guarantee that false-positive rates are kept as low as possible and that further assessment diagnostics are effective and minimally invasive.
Nekolla
E A
EA
Fachbereich SG "Strahlenschutz und Gesundheit", Bundesamt für Strahlenschutz, Neuherberg. ENekolla@BfS.de
Griebel
J
J
Brix
G
G
D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D000369:Aged, 80 and over; D001943:Breast Neoplasms / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging* / Q000401:mortality*; D015984:Causality; D005260:Female; D005858:Germany / Q000453:epidemiology; D006801:Humans; D015994:Incidence; D008327:Mammography / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D008403:Mass Screening / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D008875:Middle Aged; D015995:Prevalence; D011832:Radiation Injuries / Q000453:epidemiology*; D015203:Reproducibility of Results; D018570:Risk Assessment / Q000379:methods*; D012307:Risk Factors; D012680:Sensitivity and Specificity
N Engl J Med. 2000 Feb 24;342(8):564-71
10684916
Radiat Res. 1994 May;138(2):209-23
8183991
CA Cancer J Clin. 1997 May-Jun;47(3):134-49
9152171
BMJ. 1988 Oct 15;297(6654):943-8
3142562
Int J Cancer. 1990 May 15;45(5):889-95
2335392
N Engl J Med. 1989 Nov 9;321(19):1285-9
2797101
Br J Cancer. 1989 Jun;59(6):954-8
2736233
Lancet. 2001 Oct 20;358(9290):1340-2
11684218
Lancet. 2000 Jan 8;355(9198):129-34
10675181
Int J Cancer. 1995 Mar 16;60(6):777-80
7896444
JAMA. 1995 Aug 2;274(5):394-401
7616635
Radiat Res. 1999 Feb;151(2):218-24
9952307
Science. 1994 Oct 7;266(5182):66-71
7545954
Int J Cancer. 1989 Jul 15;44(1):7-16
2744900
N Engl J Med. 1992 Mar 19;326(12):781-5
1538720
Br J Cancer. 1995 Oct;72(4):1054-61
7547222
Am Fam Physician. 1999 Jan 1;59(1):99-104, 106
9917577
Nature. 1995 Dec 21-28;378(6559):789-92
8524414
J Natl Cancer Inst. 1992 Aug 19;84(16):1245-50
1640483
Radiologe. 2000 Feb;40(2):177-83
10758633
Radiat Res. 2003 Oct;160(4):381-407
12968934
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1998 Jan;170(1):97-104
9423608
Radiat Res. 1996 Jun;145(6):694-707
8643829
Radiat Res. 1991 Feb;125(2):214-22
1996380
Radiologe. 1997 Aug;37(8):591-6
9411474
Cancer. 1989 Jan 1;63(1):181-7
2910416
J Natl Cancer Inst. 1986 Sep;77(3):689-96
3462410
J Med Screen. 2000;7(4):195-8
11202586
Radiat Res. 1994 Feb;137(2 Suppl):S17-67
8127952
Lancet. 2002 Mar 16;359(9310):909-19
11918907
Radiat Res. 2002 Aug;158(2):220-35
12105993
J Natl Cancer Inst. 1993 Jan 6;85(1):25-31
8416252