MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2041044615 · doi:10.1016/j.jcma.2015.03.001

Mammography screening causes anxiety in women

2015· letter· en· W2041044615 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Wen-Ling Lee, Fa‐Kung Lee, Ming‐Kwang Shyu

Notice bibliographique

RevueJournal of the Chinese Medical Association · 2015
Typeletter
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueGlobal Cancer Incidence and Screening
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineMammographyBreast cancerBreast cancer screeningPsychosocialCancerCancer screeningModalitiesFamily medicineGynecologyInternal medicinePsychiatry

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

To the Editor, Breast cancer is the most frequently diagnosed cancer affecting females in the world, including Taiwan, and is the leading cause of cancer-related mortality in women.1 Because of the sheer magnitude of this disease, its psychosocial impact and associated morbidity and mortality, screening for early diagnosis may be one of the best strategies we can employ to fight against this insidious ailment. Although various radiographic modalities are readily available to help practitioners identify potentially troubling and suspicious breast cancer lesions, mammography remains the mainstay of breast cancer screening.2 Dr. Pan and colleagues authored a very impressive article addressing the clinical outcome of an 8-year nationwide mammography screening in Taiwan.3 Based on the authors’ findings, they concluded that there is still room to ameliorate the efficacy of the breast cancer screening process through comprehensive and continued education, improving the competence of cancer detection, and decreasing the number of false negative cases found in mammography screening in Taiwan.3 In addition, Dr. Pan and his colleagues responded to Dr. Wang's comment2 and wrote that the risk factors of breast cancer are multifactorial; therefore, it is impractical to expect to reduce the incidence rate of breast cancer from mammographic screening alone.3 However, this response did not appear to fully address the question. With the exception of certain extremely rare neoplasms, the risk factors for the vast majority of neoplasms are multifactorial.4,5 In addition, Pan and colleagues further favored the value of mammographic screening because a properly administered screening program is used to detect lesions at an earlier stage, and hopefully reduce subsequent medical expense and mortality.2 We completely agree with Dr. Pan's response. However, in our understanding, it would appear that the purpose of Dr. Wang inquiry might be to question the benefit of mammographic screening in Taiwan (did mammography screening indeed increase the outcome of breast cancer?). With this question in mind, a recently released report might be of some important to our audience. A report from Miller and colleagues in February of 2014, presented the results of 25 years of follow-up in the Canadian study.6 This study is important because it demonstrated the following strengths, including its randomized design, an intense level of ongoing intervention with five annual mammography screenings, a high rate of compliance, and comprehensive, long-term follow-up.7 The results of this study showed that there was no difference in breast cancer mortality between the mammography and control arms. However, there was a significant excess of incidence of invasive breast cancer observed in the mammography arm, resulting in 22% overdiagnosis,7 suggesting that 22% of screening-detected invasive breast cancers would not have reduced a woman's life expectancy if left undetected.6 The message might disappoint many physicians, including radiologists and the majority of women who participate in regular mammography screening. This finding seemed to add fuel to the recent firestorm surrounding this common screening test,7 suggesting that the benefits of mammography in routine practice may be questionable. In addition, this message derived from Miller's study may be consistent with our own knowledge; the results of Miller's study are strikingly similar—for both lack of efficacy and extent of overdiagnosis—to recent studies evaluating today's screening programs.8 Due to the absence of any significant proven benefits of mammography to combat breast cancer when such screening was performed in all women, we argued against such a practice. Finally, Dr. Pan responded to Dr. Wang's other comment, saying that a further analysis of the financial cost and emotional support is beyond the scope of the original study they made.2 We agree with Dr. Pan's answer. However, we hope that in the future, such analysis will be performed because it brings into question the entire mammography screening process as it currently exists. If current screening methods are not improved, and continue to fail to enhance the outcomes of screened women, why should we do this? This controversy relating to screening mammograms requires additional research and discussion.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,004
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesIntégrité de la recherche
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Commentaire · Signal consensuel: Commentaire
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,162
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,997

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0040,007
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,005
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,026
Tête enseignante GPT0,312
Écart entre enseignants0,286 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreCommentaire

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations6
Publié2015
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJournal of the Chinese Medical AssociationMême sujetGlobal Cancer Incidence and ScreeningTravaux en français237 207