Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (24)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Gøtzsche, P. C
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Gøtzsche, P. C
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

International Journal of Epidemiology, Volume 33, Number 1, pp. 56-64
IJE vol.33 no.1 © International Epidemiological Association 2004; all rights reserved.


Point-Counterpoint

On the benefits and harms of screening for breast cancer

Peter C Gøtzsche

The Nordic Cochrane Centre, Rigshospitalet, Dept 7112, Blegdamsvej 9, DK-2100 Copenhagen Ø, Denmark. E-mail: p.c.gotzsche@cochrane.dk

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.

In their qualitative review,1 Freedman, Petitti and Robins (FPR) claim that our critique of the randomized screening trials has little merit; that there is no reason to believe that the Canadian study was of better quality than the New York Health Insurance Plan (HIP) study or the Two-County study; and that the prior consensus on mammography was correct. However, their review suffers from erroneous assumptions and biased statistical analyses, and their quotations are often selective and misleading. In my discussion of the issues, I will follow when possible the sequence of arguments used by FPR.


    Overdiagnosis and overtreatment
 
FPR claim in their abstract that early detection leads to less invasive therapy. This could have been true, if the only effect of screening had been to detect the same tumours earlier that are detected later if women are not screened. FPR naively believe that screening does just that, i.e. does not lead to overdiagnosis. . . . [Full Text of this Article]


    Does screening save lives?
 

    Methodology of our systematic review
 

    Biased misclassification of cause of death
 

    The New York HIP trial
 
Baseline imbalances
Assessment of cause of death
Length bias and lead-time bias

    All-cause mortality
 

    Two-County study
 
Baseline imbalances
Numbers of women and deaths
Assessment of cause of death
Total mortality

    Canadian trial
 
Baseline imbalances
Concomitant physical examination
Results of Canadian trial

    Conclusion: What are the effects of screening?
 

Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
RadiologyHome page
J. Shiraishi, L. L. Pesce, C. E. Metz, and K. Doi
Experimental Design and Data Analysis in Receiver Operating Characteristic Studies: Lessons Learned from Reports in Radiology from 1997 to 2006
Radiology, October 28, 2009; (2009) radiol.2533081632v1.
[Abstract] [Full Text]


Home page
RadiologyHome page
J. D. Keen, J. E. Keen, M. A. Ganott, J. H. Sumkin, and D. Gur
Does the Marginal Benefit Exceed the Marginal Cost?
Radiology, April 1, 2007; 243(1): 299 - 300.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
AJPHHome page
F. Sassi, H. S. Luft, and E. Guadagnoli
Reducing Racial/Ethnic Disparities in Female Breast Cancer: Screening Rates and Stage at Diagnosis
Am J Public Health, December 1, 2006; 96(12): 2165 - 2172.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Hum Reprod UpdateHome page
H. I.J. Wildschut, T.J. Peters, and C. P. Weiner
Screening in women's health, with emphasis on fetal Down's syndrome, breast cancer and osteoporosis
Hum. Reprod. Update, September 1, 2006; 12(5): 499 - 512.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
BMJHome page
P. C Gotzsche
Ramifications of screening for breast cancer: overdiagnosis in the Malmo trial was considerably underestimated.
BMJ, March 25, 2006; 332(7543): 727 - 727.
[Full Text]


Home page
BMJHome page
K. J. Jorgensen and P. C Gotzsche
Content of invitations for publicly funded screening mammography.
BMJ, March 4, 2006; 332(7540): 538 - 541.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
BMJHome page
P. C Gotzsche and K. J Jorgensen
Model of outcomes of screening mammography: Information needs to support informed choices
BMJ, August 6, 2005; 331(7512): 350 - 351.
[Full Text]


Home page
BMJHome page
P. C Gotzsche, H. Thornton, and K. J Jorgensen
Reduction in mortality from breast cancer: Presentation of benefits and harms needs to be balanced
BMJ, April 30, 2005; 330(7498): 1024 - 1024.
[Full Text]


Home page
Int J EpidemiolHome page
P. C Gotzsche
Misleading quotations and other errors persist in rejoinder on breast cancer screening
Int. J. Epidemiol., December 1, 2004; 33(6): 1404 - 1404.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Int J EpidemiolHome page
D. A Freedman, D. B Petitti, and J. M Robins
Authors' response
Int. J. Epidemiol., December 1, 2004; 33(6): 1405 - 1406.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
JNCI J Natl Cancer InstHome page
P. C. Gotzsche
Re: Trends in the Treatment of Ductal Carcinoma In Situ of the Breast
J Natl Cancer Inst, August 18, 2004; 96(16): 1257 - 1257.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Int J EpidemiolHome page
D. A Freedman, D. B Petitti, and J. M Robins
Rejoinder
Int. J. Epidemiol., February 1, 2004; 33(1): 69 - 73.
[Full Text] [PDF]