Quantifying the potential problem of overdiagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ in breast cancer screening

M. F. Yen, L. Tabár, B. Vitak, R. A. Smith, H. H. Chen, S. W. Duffy

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

108 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The relevance of detection of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) in a breast cancer screening programme, and the extent of overdiagnosis of non-progressive lesions, remains controversial. It was the purpose of this paper to estimate the incidence of non-progressive, 'overdiagnosed' DCIS. We defined non-progressive DCIS (DCIS0) as DCIS which could not have progressed to invasive disease if left untreated. Progressive DCIS (DCIS1) was defined as DCIS which has the propensity to progress to invasive disease. We fitted a Markov process model of the incidence of progressive and non-progressive DCIS, the transition of the former to preclinical invasive disease and the subsequent progression to clinical symptomatic cancer. We used data from the Swedish Two-County Trial and from service screening programmes in the UK, Netherlands, Australia and the USA to estimate the incidence of progressive and non-progressive DCIS, and the detection rates of each at the first and subsequent screening. Average incidence of non-progressive DCIS was 1.11 per 100 000 per year. Average incidence of progressive DCIS was 2.1 per 1000 per year. At prevalence screen, 37% of DCIS cases were estimated to be non-progressive. A woman attending prevalence screen has a 19 times greater chance of having a progressive DCIS or an invasive tumour diagnosed than of having a non-progressive DCIS diagnosed. At incidence screen, only 4% of DCIS cases were estimated to be non-progressive. A woman attending an incidence screen has a 166 times higher probability of having a progressive DCIS or invasive lesion diagnosed than of having a non-progressive DCIS diagnosed. There is an element of overdiagnosis of DCIS in breast cancer screening, but the phenomenon is small in both relative and absolute terms.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1746-1754
Number of pages9
JournalEuropean Journal of Cancer
Volume39
Issue number12
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Aug 2003
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Carcinoma, Intraductal, Noninfiltrating
Early Detection of Cancer
Breast Neoplasms
Incidence
Medical Overuse
Markov Chains

Keywords

  • Breast screening
  • Ductal carcinoma in situ
  • Overdiagnosis

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cancer Research
  • Hematology
  • Oncology

Cite this

Quantifying the potential problem of overdiagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ in breast cancer screening. / Yen, M. F.; Tabár, L.; Vitak, B.; Smith, R. A.; Chen, H. H.; Duffy, S. W.

In: European Journal of Cancer, Vol. 39, No. 12, 08.2003, p. 1746-1754.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Yen, M. F. ; Tabár, L. ; Vitak, B. ; Smith, R. A. ; Chen, H. H. ; Duffy, S. W. / Quantifying the potential problem of overdiagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ in breast cancer screening. In: European Journal of Cancer. 2003 ; Vol. 39, No. 12. pp. 1746-1754.
@article{216053596d46491f98ad85f6fd5f0bed,
title = "Quantifying the potential problem of overdiagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ in breast cancer screening",
abstract = "The relevance of detection of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) in a breast cancer screening programme, and the extent of overdiagnosis of non-progressive lesions, remains controversial. It was the purpose of this paper to estimate the incidence of non-progressive, 'overdiagnosed' DCIS. We defined non-progressive DCIS (DCIS0) as DCIS which could not have progressed to invasive disease if left untreated. Progressive DCIS (DCIS1) was defined as DCIS which has the propensity to progress to invasive disease. We fitted a Markov process model of the incidence of progressive and non-progressive DCIS, the transition of the former to preclinical invasive disease and the subsequent progression to clinical symptomatic cancer. We used data from the Swedish Two-County Trial and from service screening programmes in the UK, Netherlands, Australia and the USA to estimate the incidence of progressive and non-progressive DCIS, and the detection rates of each at the first and subsequent screening. Average incidence of non-progressive DCIS was 1.11 per 100 000 per year. Average incidence of progressive DCIS was 2.1 per 1000 per year. At prevalence screen, 37{\%} of DCIS cases were estimated to be non-progressive. A woman attending prevalence screen has a 19 times greater chance of having a progressive DCIS or an invasive tumour diagnosed than of having a non-progressive DCIS diagnosed. At incidence screen, only 4{\%} of DCIS cases were estimated to be non-progressive. A woman attending an incidence screen has a 166 times higher probability of having a progressive DCIS or invasive lesion diagnosed than of having a non-progressive DCIS diagnosed. There is an element of overdiagnosis of DCIS in breast cancer screening, but the phenomenon is small in both relative and absolute terms.",
keywords = "Breast screening, Ductal carcinoma in situ, Overdiagnosis",
author = "Yen, {M. F.} and L. Tab{\'a}r and B. Vitak and Smith, {R. A.} and Chen, {H. H.} and Duffy, {S. W.}",
year = "2003",
month = "8",
doi = "10.1016/S0959-8049(03)00260-0",
language = "English",
volume = "39",
pages = "1746--1754",
journal = "European Journal of Cancer",
issn = "0959-8049",
publisher = "Elsevier Limited",
number = "12",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Quantifying the potential problem of overdiagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ in breast cancer screening

AU - Yen, M. F.

AU - Tabár, L.

AU - Vitak, B.

AU - Smith, R. A.

AU - Chen, H. H.

AU - Duffy, S. W.

PY - 2003/8

Y1 - 2003/8

N2 - The relevance of detection of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) in a breast cancer screening programme, and the extent of overdiagnosis of non-progressive lesions, remains controversial. It was the purpose of this paper to estimate the incidence of non-progressive, 'overdiagnosed' DCIS. We defined non-progressive DCIS (DCIS0) as DCIS which could not have progressed to invasive disease if left untreated. Progressive DCIS (DCIS1) was defined as DCIS which has the propensity to progress to invasive disease. We fitted a Markov process model of the incidence of progressive and non-progressive DCIS, the transition of the former to preclinical invasive disease and the subsequent progression to clinical symptomatic cancer. We used data from the Swedish Two-County Trial and from service screening programmes in the UK, Netherlands, Australia and the USA to estimate the incidence of progressive and non-progressive DCIS, and the detection rates of each at the first and subsequent screening. Average incidence of non-progressive DCIS was 1.11 per 100 000 per year. Average incidence of progressive DCIS was 2.1 per 1000 per year. At prevalence screen, 37% of DCIS cases were estimated to be non-progressive. A woman attending prevalence screen has a 19 times greater chance of having a progressive DCIS or an invasive tumour diagnosed than of having a non-progressive DCIS diagnosed. At incidence screen, only 4% of DCIS cases were estimated to be non-progressive. A woman attending an incidence screen has a 166 times higher probability of having a progressive DCIS or invasive lesion diagnosed than of having a non-progressive DCIS diagnosed. There is an element of overdiagnosis of DCIS in breast cancer screening, but the phenomenon is small in both relative and absolute terms.

AB - The relevance of detection of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) in a breast cancer screening programme, and the extent of overdiagnosis of non-progressive lesions, remains controversial. It was the purpose of this paper to estimate the incidence of non-progressive, 'overdiagnosed' DCIS. We defined non-progressive DCIS (DCIS0) as DCIS which could not have progressed to invasive disease if left untreated. Progressive DCIS (DCIS1) was defined as DCIS which has the propensity to progress to invasive disease. We fitted a Markov process model of the incidence of progressive and non-progressive DCIS, the transition of the former to preclinical invasive disease and the subsequent progression to clinical symptomatic cancer. We used data from the Swedish Two-County Trial and from service screening programmes in the UK, Netherlands, Australia and the USA to estimate the incidence of progressive and non-progressive DCIS, and the detection rates of each at the first and subsequent screening. Average incidence of non-progressive DCIS was 1.11 per 100 000 per year. Average incidence of progressive DCIS was 2.1 per 1000 per year. At prevalence screen, 37% of DCIS cases were estimated to be non-progressive. A woman attending prevalence screen has a 19 times greater chance of having a progressive DCIS or an invasive tumour diagnosed than of having a non-progressive DCIS diagnosed. At incidence screen, only 4% of DCIS cases were estimated to be non-progressive. A woman attending an incidence screen has a 166 times higher probability of having a progressive DCIS or invasive lesion diagnosed than of having a non-progressive DCIS diagnosed. There is an element of overdiagnosis of DCIS in breast cancer screening, but the phenomenon is small in both relative and absolute terms.

KW - Breast screening

KW - Ductal carcinoma in situ

KW - Overdiagnosis

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0042366192&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0042366192&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/S0959-8049(03)00260-0

DO - 10.1016/S0959-8049(03)00260-0

M3 - Article

C2 - 12888370

AN - SCOPUS:0042366192

VL - 39

SP - 1746

EP - 1754

JO - European Journal of Cancer

JF - European Journal of Cancer

SN - 0959-8049

IS - 12

ER -