Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2024 Jan 25;19(1):e0297048.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0297048. eCollection 2024.

Harms and benefits of mammographic screening for breast cancer in Brazil

Arn Migowski  1   2 , Paulo Nadanovsky  3   4 , Cid Manso de Mello Vianna  3
Affiliations

Harms and benefits of mammographic screening for breast cancer in Brazil

Arn Migowski et al. PLoS One. .

Abstract

Introduction: In the absence of evidence on the effect of mammographic screening on overall mortality, comparing the number of deaths avoided with the number of deaths caused by screening would be ideal, but the only existing models of this type adopt a very narrow definition of harms. The objective of the present study was to estimate the number of deaths prevented and induced by various mammography screening protocols in Brazil.

Methods: A simulation study of cohorts of Brazilian women screened, considering various age groups and screening interval protocols, was performed based on life tables. The number of deaths avoided and caused by screening was estimated, as was the absolute risk reduction, the number needed to invite for screening-NNS, the net benefit of screening, and the ratio of "lives saved" to "lives lost". Nine possible combinations of balances between benefits and harms were performed for each protocol, in addition to other sensitivity analyses.

Results and conclusions: The most efficient protocol was biennial screening from 60 to 69 years of age, with almost three times more deaths avoided than biennial screening from 50 to 59 years of age, with a similar number of deaths avoided by biennial screening from 50 to 69 years of age and with the greatest net benefit. Compared with the best scenario of annual screening from 40 to 49 years of age, the NNS of the protocol with biennial screening from 60 to 69 years of age was three-fold lower. Even in its best scenario, the addition of annual screening from 40 to 49 years of age to biennial screening from 50 to 69 years of age results in a decreased net benefit. However, even in the 50-69 year age group, the estimated reduction in breast cancer mortality for Brazil was half that estimated for the United Kingdom.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. World Health Organization. WHO position paper on mammography screening. Geneva, 2014. Available at: https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/137339/9789241507936_en... (Accessed on September 26, 2023). - PubMed
    1. Migowski A, Dias MBK, Nadanovsky P, Silva GAE, Sant’Ana DR, Stein AT. Guidelines for early detection of breast cancer in Brazil. III—Challenges for implementation. Cad Saude Publica. 2018. Jun 25;34(6):e00046317. English, Portuguese. doi: 10.1590/0102-311X00046317 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Qin X, Nagler RH, Fowler EF, Gollust SE. U.S. women’s perceived importance of the harms and benefits of mammograms and associations with screening ambivalence: Results from a national survey. Prev Med. 2019. Jun;123:130–137. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2019.03.023 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Miglioretti DL, Lange J, van den Broek JJ, Lee CI, van Ravesteyn NT, Ritley D, et al.. Radiation-Induced Breast Cancer Incidence and Mortality From Digital Mammography Screening: A Modeling Study. Ann Intern Med. 2016;164(4):205–14. doi: 10.7326/M15-1241 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. 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. 2005. Sep 5;93(5):590–6. doi: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6602683 - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Grants and funding

The authors received no specific funding for this work.