MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4405592094 · doi:10.1186/s13643-024-02700-3

Screening for breast cancer: a systematic review update to inform the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care guideline

2024· review· en· W4405592094 sur OpenAlexafffundabout
Alexandria Bennett, Nicole Shaver, Niyati Vyas, Faris Almoli, Róbert Pap, Andrea Ibarra Douglas, Taddele Kibret, Becky Skidmore, Martin D. Yaffe, Anna N. Wilkinson, Jean M. Seely, Julian Little, David Moher

Notice bibliographique

RevueSystematic Reviews · 2024
Typereview
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueGlobal Cancer Incidence and Screening
Établissements canadiensSunnybrook Health Science CentreOntario Institute for Cancer ResearchOttawa HospitalCanadian Patient Safety InstituteUniversity of Ottawa
Organismes subventionnairesMcMaster University
Mots-clésMedicineTask forceGuidelineBreast cancerFamily medicineHealth careAlternative medicineSystematic reviewBreast cancer screeningMEDLINECancerMammographyPathologyInternal medicine

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: This systematic review update synthesized recent evidence on the benefits and harms of breast cancer screening in women aged ≥ 40 years and aims to inform the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care's (CTFPHC) guideline update. METHODS: We searched Ovid MEDLINE® ALL, Embase Classic + Embase and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to update our searches to July 8, 2023. Search results for observational studies were limited to publication dates from 2014 to capture more relevant studies. Screening was performed independently and in duplicate by the review team. To expedite the screening process, machine learning was used to prioritize relevant references. Critical health outcomes, as outlined by the CTFPHC, included breast cancer and all-cause mortality, treatment-related morbidity and overdiagnosis. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), non/quasi RCTs and observational studies were included. Data extraction and quality assessment were performed by one reviewer and verified by another. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool for RCTs and the Joanna Brigg's Institute (JBI) checklists for non-randomized and observational studies. When deemed appropriate, studies were pooled via random-effects models. The overall certainty of the evidence was assessed following GRADE guidance. RESULTS: Three new papers reporting on existing RCT trial data and 26 observational studies were included. No new RCTs were identified in this update. No study reported results by ethnicity, race, proportion of study population with dense breasts, or socioeconomic status. For breast cancer mortality, RCT data from the prior review reported a significant relative reduction in the risk of breast cancer mortality with screening mammography for a general population of 15% (RR 0.85 95% CI 0.78 to 0.93). In this review update, the breast cancer mortality relative risk reduction based on RCT data remained the same, and absolute effects by age decade over 10 years were 0.27 fewer deaths per 1000 in those aged 40 to 49; 0.50 fewer deaths per 1000 in those aged 50 to 59; 0.65 fewer deaths per 1000 in those aged 60 to 69; and 0.92 fewer deaths per 1000 in those aged 70 to 74. For observational data, the relative mortality risk reduction ranged from 29 to 62%. Absolute effects from breast cancer mortality over 10 years ranged from 0.79 to 0.94 fewer deaths per 1000 in those aged 40 to 49; 1.45 to 1.72 fewer deaths per 1000 in those aged 50 to 59; 1.89 to 2.24 fewer deaths per 1000 in those aged 60 to 69; and 2.68 to 3.17 fewer deaths per 1000 in those aged 70 to 74. For all-cause mortality, RCT data from the prior review reported a non-significant relative reduction in the risk of all-cause mortality of screening mammography for a general population of 1% (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.00). In this review update, the absolute effects for all-cause mortality over 10 years by age decade were 0.13 fewer deaths per 1000 in those aged 40 to 49; 0.31 fewer deaths per 1000 in those aged 50 to 59; 0.71 fewer deaths per 1000 in those aged 60 to 69; and 1.41 fewer deaths per 1000 in those aged 70 to 74. No observational data were found for all-cause mortality. For overdiagnosis, this review update found the absolute effects for RCT data (range of follow-up between 9 and 15 years) to be 1.95 more invasive and in situ cancers per 1000, or 1 more invasive cancer per 1000, for those aged 40 to 49 and 1.93 more invasive and in situ cancers per 1000, or 1.18 more invasive cancers per 1000, for those aged 50 to 59. A sensitivity analysis removing high risk of bias studies found 1.57 more invasive and in situ cancers, or 0.49 more invasive cancers, per 1000 for those aged 40 to 49 and 3.95 more invasive and in situ cancers per 1000, or 2.81 more invasive cancers per 1000, in those aged 50 to 59. For observational data, one report (follow-up for 13 years) found 0.34 more invasive and in situ cancers per 1000 in those aged 50 to 69. Overall, the GRADE certainty of evidence was assessed as low or very low, suggesting that the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of screening for breast cancer on the outcomes evaluated in this review. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review update did not identify any new trials comparing breast cancer screening to no screening. Although 26 new observational studies were identified, the overall quality of evidence remains generally low or very low. Future research initiatives should prioritize studying screening in higher risk populations such as those from different ages, racial or ethnic groups, with dense breasts or family history. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: Protocol available on the Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/xngsu/.

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)0,011
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict), Méta-épidémiologie (sens large), Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict)
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Revue systématique · Signal consensuel: Revue systématique
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: Synthèse
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,358
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0110,003
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0160,003
Bibliométrie0,0000,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,001

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 Opus0,130
Tête enseignante GPT0,455
Écart entre enseignants0,325 · 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; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.

Devis d'étudeRevue systématique
Domainenon disponible
GenreSynthèse

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

En bref

Citations14
Publié2024
Routes d'admission3
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueSystematic ReviewsMême sujetGlobal Cancer Incidence and ScreeningTravaux en français237 207