Author
Listed:
- James A Hanley
- Ailish Hannigan
- Katie M O’Brien
Abstract
Our objective was to compare breast cancer mortality in two regions of the Republic of Ireland that introduced a screening programme eight years apart, and to estimate the steady-state mortality deficits the programme will produce. We carried out age- and year-matched between-region comparison of breast cancer mortality rates, and of incidence rates of stage 2–4 breast cancer, in the eligible cohorts. The regions comprised counties that, beginning in early 2000 (region 1) and late 2007 (region 2), invited women aged 50–64 to biennial mammography screening. The data were supplied by the National Cancer Registry, Central Statistics Office. As impact measures, we used age-and-year-matched mortality (from breast cancers diagnosed from 2000 onwards), rate ratios and incidence rate ratios in the compared regions from 2000 to 2013. Ratios were adjusted for between-region differences in background rates. In cohorts too old to be invited, death rates in regions 1 and 2 were 702 per 0.91 and 727 per 0.90 million women-years respectively (Ratio 0.96). In the eligible cohorts, they were 1027 per 2.9 and 1095 per 2.67 (Ratio 0.88). Thus, rates in cohorts that could have benefitted were 9% lower in region 1 than region 2: (95%CI: -20%, +4%). The incidence rates of stage 2–4 breast cancer were 7% lower in region 2 than region 1 over the entire 14 year period, and 20% lower in 2007, i.e., before the screening in region 2 began to narrow the difference. Since mortality reductions due to screening only manifest after several years, the full impact of screening has not yet been realized in region 1. The lower rate observed in that region is a conservative estimate of the steady state benefit. Additional deaths would have been averted had screening continued beyond age 64.
Suggested Citation
James A Hanley & Ailish Hannigan & Katie M O’Brien, 2017.
"Mortality reductions due to mammography screening: Contemporary population-based data,"
PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(12), pages 1-14, December.
Handle:
RePEc:plo:pone00:0188947
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0188947
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0188947. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.