title: Screening for breast cancer with mammography.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  A variety of estimates of the benefits and harms of mammographic screening for breast cancer have been published and national policies vary.
  
  
  OBJECTIVE
  To assess the effect of screening for breast cancer with mammography on mortality and morbidity.
  
  
  METHODS
  We searched PubMed (November 2008).
  
  
  METHODS
  Randomised trials comparing mammographic screening with no mammographic screening.
  
  
  METHODS
  Both authors independently extracted data. Study authors were contacted for additional information.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Eight eligible trials were identified. We excluded a biased trial and included 600,000 women in the analyses. Three trials with adequate randomisation did not show a significant reduction in breast cancer mortality at 13 years (relative risk (RR) 0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.79 to 1.02); four trials with suboptimal randomisation showed a significant reduction in breast cancer mortality with an RR of 0.75 (95% CI 0.67 to 0.83). The RR for all seven trials combined was 0.81 (95% CI 0.74 to 0.87). We found that breast cancer mortality was an unreliable outcome that was biased in favour of screening, mainly because of differential misclassification of cause of death. The trials with adequate randomisation did not find an effect of screening on cancer mortality, including breast cancer, after 10 years (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.10) or on all-cause mortality after 13 years (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.03).Numbers of lumpectomies and mastectomies were significantly larger in the screened groups (RR 1.31, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.42) for the two adequately randomised trials that measured this outcome; the use of radiotherapy was similarly increased.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Screening is likely to reduce breast cancer mortality. As the effect was lowest in the adequately randomised trials, a reasonable estimate is a 15% reduction corresponding to an absolute risk reduction of 0.05%. Screening led to 30% overdiagnosis and overtreatment, or an absolute risk increase of 0.5%. This means that for every 2000 women invited for screening throughout 10 years, one will have her life prolonged and 10 healthy women, who would not have been diagnosed if there had not been screening, will be treated unnecessarily. Furthermore, more than 200 women will experience important psychological distress for many months because of false positive findings. It is thus not clear whether screening does more good than harm. To help ensure that the women are fully informed of both benefits and harms before they decide whether or not to attend screening, we have written an evidence-based leaflet for lay people that is available in several languages on www.cochrane.dk.
authors.affiliation: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, Rigshospitalet, Blegdamsvej 9, 3343, Copenhagen, Denmark, 2100.
authors.forename: Peter C
authors.initials: PC
authors.lastname: Gøtzsche
authors.forename: Margrethe
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Nielsen
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D001943:Breast Neoplasms / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging* / Q000401:mortality*; D002423:Cause of Death; D003951:Diagnostic Errors; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008327:Mammography / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000523:psychology; D008403:Mass Screening; D008875:Middle Aged; D016032:Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic