Screening for breast cancer with mammography

Key messages

1. The most reliable studies did not show that breast screening with mammography reduces your risk of dying from breast cancer. While other studies did show this, they are less reliable.

2. Breast screening detects cancers that would never have caused death or disease in the absence of screening (overdiagnosis). This increases your risk of having a breast or a lump in your breast removed needlessly (overtreatment). Breast screening also causes false positive results, which is when the mammogram raises a suspicion of breast cancer that is later put to rest. False positive tests are common and can negatively affect qualiy of life also after a serious diagnosis is ruled out.

3. Substantial changes in technology, treatment, and greater public awareness of breast cancer since the studies were done means that the effects of breast screening are uncertain and that any benefit is likely smaller today.

What is breast cancer?

Breast cancer is a common cancer in women. The risk increases with age. It is a highly variable disease, with some cases developing rapidly and aggressively while others grow slowly or not at all. This complicates screening, which is more likely to detect slow-growing than fast growing cancers.

How does breast screening work?

Screening with mammography uses X-ray imaging to find breast cancer before a lump is felt. Screening is therefore intended for women in whom breast cancer is not suspected. The idea is to detect cancer earlier, when a cure is more likely. However, as some cancers have spread before screen detection is possible, one cannot assume that earlier detection is beneficial.

What did we want to find out?

We wanted to find out if mammography screening reduces the risk of dying from breast cancer; if it reduces the need for treatment; if it reduces the risk of dying overall; and to which extent it causes harms in terms of overdiagnosis and overtreatment of breast cancers not destined to cause death or symptoms in the lifetime of the women.

What did we do?

We searched for studies that compared screening with no screening.

We compared and summarized the results of the studies and rated our confidence in the evidence, based on factors such as study methods, study context, and size of studies.

What did we find?

We found eight trials that involved 600,000 women in the age range 39 to 74 years. The design of some studies was more reliable than others, mainly due to the way women were distributed between the screening group and the control group, but also for other reasons. The most reliable studies showed that screening likely did not reduce the risk of dying from breast cancer, regardless of age group. Due to the age of the trials, our certainty of this result was assessed as ‘low’. While other trials found a benefit from screening, their less reliable designs mean that our certainty in these resuts is even lower (’very low’).

Neither our analysis of the most or of the least reliable trials showed that screening reduced the risk of dying when all causes were considered.

The trials indicated with moderate certainty that the risk of being overdiagnosed happened to about 1 in 5 of those diagnosed with breast cancer during the period they were offered screening.

What are the limitations of the evidence?

There were important differences in the estimated benefit (reduced risk of death from breast cancer) between well and less well designed trials. The main design limitation was that some trial randomised groups of women rather than individuals, which meant that the two groups did not have a comparable risk of getting breast cancer.

There has been substantial changes in technology and treatment since the trials were done, and increased awareness of breast cancer and the importance of seeking care as soon as possible. This means that the possible benefit of breast screening today is likely quite different from that in the trials. It is uncertain if mammography screening delivers an important benefit today but we are certain it causes serious harms, overdiagnosis and overtreatment and false positive results. The included trials were performed in Europe and North America and did not consider effects in minorities.

How up to date is the evidence?

This review updates our previous review but did not identify new trials. The evidence is up to date to February 2023.

Types of studies

Randomised clinical trials. We did not limit our inclusion of trials based on location, setting, definition of condition, demographic factors, the setting of the screening intervention (hospitals, private clinics, mobile units, etc.), or method of diagnosis (i.e. digital or print mammograms).

Trials using suboptimal randomisation methods such as cluster randomisation, were included but evaluated in separate subgroup analyses. In cases where substantial heterogeneity between trial results could be explained by use of optimal versus suboptimal randomisation methods, we based our conclusions on trials with optimal randomisation methods and chose not to present summary estimates including all trials.

We have discussed recent observational studies in this review as they have provided important contextual knowledge, e.g. in relation to evidence of overdiagnosis and other harms of screening in today’s setting.

However, such studies were not formally included or analysed in this review.

Types of participants

Women without clinically suspected or previously diagnosed breast cancer.

Types of interventions

The intervention was screening mammography with X-ray imaging. We included trials whether they used film or digital mammograms and did not exclude trials if they used technology such as computer-assisted detection. We did not include trials of tomosynthesis, magnetic resonance imagig (MRI), or ultrasound. Breast screening using X-ray in combination with ultrasound is evaluated in another review (Glechner, 2023). We did not exclude trials based on the number or frequency of screening tests or based on age groups included. The control was no offer of screening mammograms, but we accepted clinical and self-breast examination in the control group.

Types of outcome measures

We included trials whether they reported our pre-specified outcomes or not. All our outcome measures of effects were dichotomous (binary data) and differences are presented as risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals. Absolute differences are also presented using a denominator that allows direct comparisons between benefits and harms, i.e. in our Summary of Findings tables. We report outcomes at 7, 13 and, when possible, 25 years of follow-up. Overdiagnosis was meassured as the difference in incidence between the screening and control arm at the latest time of follow-up in those trials that did not offer mammography screening to the control group at the end of the intervention phase. This is the same definition as used in another review (UK review, 2012).

Electronic searches

For the, 2023 update of our review, we searched the following databases up to 28 February, 2023:

• PubMed (Appendix 1).

• The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, 2023, Issue 2) (Appendix 2).

• The Cochrane Breast Cancer Group’s Specialised Register. Details of the search strategies used by the CBCG for the identification of studies and the procedure used to code references are outlined in their module (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/o/cochrane/clabout/articles/BREASTCA/frame.html). Trials with the keywords ‘mammography’ and ‘screening’ were extracted for consideration.

• The World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) search portal (http://apps.who.int/trialsearch/Default.aspx) (Appendix 3).

• Clinicaltrials.gov (http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/search) (Appendix 4).

In the original version of the review, we used a very broad search strategy. We searched PubMed with (breast neoplasms[MeSH] OR “breast cancer” OR mammography[MeSH] OR mammograph*) AND (mass screening[MeSH] OR screen*). This search was supplemented with a search on author names in the author field (Alexander F*, Andersson I*, Baines C*, Bjurstam N*, Duffy S*, Fagerberg G*, Frisell J*, Miller AB, Moss S*, Nystrom L*, Shapiro S, Tabar L*). The latest search was done on 22 November, 2012 and 29,222 records were imported into ProCite. Until the, 2009 review, these records were searched for author names, cities and eponyms for the trials; thereafter, all new records were browsed. This very broad search strategy, combined with browsing the titles and reading the abstracts when a paper might be relevant for mammography screening, enabled us to assemble also observational studies of the benefits and harms of screening.

We searched the World Health Organization’s International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (22 November, 2012) with this strategy, for Recruitment Status ALL: (Condition: breast AND (cancer% OR carcinoma% OR neoplas% OR tumour% OR tumor%) AND Intervention: screen OR mass screen%) OR (Condition: breast AND (cancer% OR carcinoma% OR neoplas% OR tumour% OR tumor%) AND Intervention: mammograph%) OR (Condition: breast neoplasm AND Intervention: mammography).

Searching other resources

We scanned reference lists and included letters, abstracts, grey literature and unpublished data to retrieve as much relevant information as possible. There were no language restrictions.

Selection of studies

In this updated review, we used Cochrane’s Screen4Me workflow to help assess the search results. Screen4Me comprises three components: known assessments – a service that matches records in the search results to records that have already been screened in Cochrane Crowd and been labelled as an RCT or as Not an RCT; the RCT classifier – a machine learning model that distinguishes RCTs from non-RCTs, and if appropriate, Cochrane Crowd – Cochrane’s citizen science platform where the Crowd help to identify and describe health evidence. For more information about Screen4Me and the evaluations that have been done, please go to the Screen4Me webpage on the Cochrane Information Specialist’s portal: https://community.cochrane.org/organizational-info/resources/resourcesgroups/information-specialists-portal. In addition, more detailed information regarding evaluations of the Screen4Me components can be found in the following publications: Noel-Storr, 2020; Noel-Storr, 2021; Marshall, 2018; Thomas, 2020.

Two authors independently decided which trials to include based on the prestated criteria using Covidence software. Disagreements were resolved by discussion (Figure 1).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1

Screen4Me Summary Diagram

Data extraction and management

Two authors independently extracted methodological and outcome data; disagreements were resolved by discussion. Extracted data included: number of women randomised; randomisation and blinding procedures; exclusions after randomisation; type of mammography; number of screenings and interval between screenings; attendance rate; introduction of screening in the control group; co-interventions; number of cancers identified; breast cancer mortality; cancer mortality; all-cause mortality; harms of mammography; and use of surgical interventions, chemotherapy, radiotherapy, tamoxifen and other adjuvant therapy.

Assessment of risk of bias in included studies

We assessed whether the randomisation was adequate and led to comparable groups, following standard criteria as closely as possible (Higgins, 2008). These included sequence generation and allocation concealment. We also assessed blinding of outcome assessors; incomplete outcome data; selective reporting; and other biases. The risk of bias for each domain was assessed as ‘high’, ‘moderate ‘ or ‘low’. As trials of population screening look for small differences in absolute terms, they are sensitive to bias and we payed particular attention to the randomisation method and possible baseline imbalances. We divided the trials into those with adequate randomisation (individual, centralised randomisation) and those with suboptimal randomisation (cluster randomisation, randomisation by date of birth, or randomisation in other ways that would raise concern about baseline imbalances). According to the Cochrane Handbook (Higgins, 2008), the primary analysis in a systematic review should be based on studies at low risk of bias. We therefore did not combine results from adequately randomised studies with other studies.

Measures of treatment effect

Risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals. All included outcomes were binary.

Unit of analysis issues

We based our conclusions on the individually randomised trials with adequate randomisation methods. Results from suboptimally randomised trials that used cluster randomisation are presented in separate subgroup analyses and did not form the basis for our conclusions. As the included trials were old, information required to adjust for clustering effects were not available. Given that we present the results from the cluster randomised trials for transparency and completeness, and as they did not influence our conclusions, an adjustment for clustering effects would not have changed them.

Dealing with missing data

This was assessed as part of our risk of bias assessment. We contacted the primary investigators to clarify uncertainties and to obtain additional data. We analysed available data only and did not impute missing data.

Assessment of heterogeneity

In case of indications of substantial statistical heterogeneity (non-overlapping confidence intervals or I² >70%) we explored possible causes in subgroup analyses. Possible methodological reasons for heterogeneity in terms of adequate versus suboptimal randomisation was also explored in subgroup analyses and using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Any possible clinical heterogeneity was evaluated through the indirectness domain in our GRADE assessment.

Assessment of reporting biases

As trials of population screening tend to be very large, we consider it unlikely that trials were performed but not reported and we have not found indications that such trials exist. The size of the trials also means that small study effects are unlikely and we therefore did not use funnel plots to explore this. Incomplete data assessment and incomplete outcome reporting was considered as part of our risk of bias assessment.

Data synthesis

We performed intention-to-treat analyses, when possible, by including all randomised women. A fixed-effect model with the Mantel-Haenszel method was used, and 95% confidence intervals (CI) are presented. Absolute risk are calculated and presented in our Summary of Findings tables.

In the trials with suboptimal randomisation, we could not carry out a proper analysis for all-cause mortality as we did not have access to the necessary data to correct for baseline differences (see ‘Risk of bias in included studies’) but present the available data in the graphs for the sake of completeness. For breast cancer mortality, our estimates are not formally correct because we were unable to adjust for baseline differences since baseline characteristics were not reported for several of the suboptimally randomised trials. However, they turned out to be in close agreement with the estimates and CIs published by the trialists.

We report outcome data at approximately 7, 13, and 24 years, which were the most common follow-up periods in the trial reports and report effect estimates at multiple time points as not all trials presented data after very long follow-up and as some effects could be diluted over time. We present age groups under 50 years of age, 50 years and above; and 70 years and above, which is the age limits that has most often been used by the trialists and in screening programmes.

Subgroup analysis and investigation of heterogeneity

Apart from analyses by age groups and the division of the trials according to whether they were adequately or suboptimally randomised, we did not perform subgroup analyses.

Sensitivity analysis

We did not do any sensitivity analyses as we had already explored the possible impact of age and randomisation method on the robustness of results in subgroup analyses.

Summary of findings and assessment of the certainty of the evidence

We exported results of our meta-analyses to GRADEpro GDT, which presented these including absolute numbers for our calculated risk ratios. We selected effect meassures from the least biased trials to be presented in the Summary of Findings table and presented a table for all age groups combined; for women aged <50 years; aged >50 years; and 70 years and above. We present Summary of Findings tables for various age groups separately as an expansion of breast screening is currently considered in various countries. However, not all outcomes could be assessed for all age groups and the most complete outcome set is reported for the combined asssessment of the intervention for all age groups. We prioritised to present results at longest time of follow up, but as not all trials reported results for total mortality at 25 years, we present this oucome at 13 years of follow-up in the table. In GRADEpro GDT, we performed the GRADE assessment of the certainty of the evidence for each outcome. We assed the domains: risk of bias; inconsistency; indirectness; imprecision; and publication bias.

Data for all our outcomes were available for only one comparison (breast screening in all age groups combined versus no screening). For other comparisons, outcomes for which no data were available are not shown to avoid large empty tables for some age groups.

Results of the search

In this updated review, after de-duplication, the search identified a total of 3,912 records. In assessing these, we used Cochrane’s Screen4Me workflow to help identify potential reports of randomised trials. The results of the Screen4Me assessment process can be seen in Figure 1. We then assessed the remaining 2,162 records left after Screen4Me. When 365 duplicates were removed,, 1797 records were assessed for eligibility, of which 18 were retrieved in full text. We excluded 1 record because it did not address the relevant intervention and excluded 2 records because the study design did not fulfil our inclusion criteria. We did not identify any new, completed trials compared to our previous update, nor did we find any additional trials through other sources. The results of the searches are presented in the PRISMA flow diagram (Figure 2).

In total, we included 8 studies (8 from the previous review, with 15 new papers describing already included trials identified in the updated search).

The original PubMed search we performed in, 2012 identified 29,222 records.

Included studies

We included eight trials (Canada, 1980; Edinburgh, 1978; Göteborg, 1982; Malmö, 1976; New York, 1963; Stockholm, 1981; Two-County, 1977; UK age trial, 1991), which comprised slightly different subtrials. The Canadian trial was actually two trials, one covering the age group 40 to 49 years (Canada, 1980a) and the other 50 to 59 years (Canada, 1980b). The Edinburgh and Malmö trials continued to include women as they passed the lower age limit for entry to the trial, and the Two-County trial had different randomisation ratios in the two counties (Kopparberg, 1977; Östergötland, 1978). Most trials covered the age range 45 to 64 years, but the UK Age trial invited women aged 39 to 41 years to participate. The Canadian trial was the only one in which the women were individually randomised after invitation and informed consent to participate; the others used a variety of procedures based on a prespecified segment of the female population that was randomised to invitation for screening or to a control group.

The number of screening invitations was in the range of four to nine for all trials except the Stockholm and Two-County trials, in which a large fraction were invited for only two or three screenings. In the Two-County trial, the mammographically screened women were encouraged to perform breast self-examinations once a month on a fixed date (Rapport, 1982). This was Swedish policy generally but we do not know for certain whether this was also true for the Göteborg, Malmö and Stockholm trials. Clinical examinations of screened women were performed in New York and Edinburgh. In Canada, in the 40 to 49 year age group, screened women had an annual clinical breast examination whereas control women were examined at the first visit and were taught self-examination for use thereafter. In the 50 to 59 year age group, all women had their breasts clinically examined annually.

The women in the control group were not invited to screening at any point in time in the New York trial, whereas they were invited for screening after 10 to 13 years of follow up in the Edinburgh, Malmö and UK age trials. In the Canadian trial, most of the women in the control group were invited when the trial ended (Baines, 2005). Some women were invited for screening while the trial was still ongoing in the Göteborg, Stockholm and Two-County trials (see ‘Risk of bias in included studies’).

In all trials, women in the control groups were offered usual care. This included mammography on indication, that is for suspected malignancy, with the probable exceptions of the New York trial and the first five years of the Two-County trial.

According to the information we identified, the technical quality of the mammograms and the observer variation were assessed only in the Canadian trial. There are data on diagnostic rates, however, that show that the sensitivity in the trials that followed the New York trial has not consistently improved (Fletcher, 1993; IARC, 2002). Various combinations of one- and two-view mammography were used, i.e. one view mammography was used in the Two-County trial whereas two-view mammography was used in the Canadian trial (see ‘Characteristics of included studies’).

An additional trial in the UK is ongoing (http://www.controlled-trials.com/ISRCTN33292440). This is an age extension, cluster randomised trial, recruiting women aged 47-49 or 71-73 years old, and aiming for a sample size of 3 million women. It started in, 2010 and has not yet reported any results.

A small trial from Colombia where only two women died from breast cancer at the time of reporting is awaiting classification (Murillo, 2016).

Excluded studies

We excluded two small trials of several interventions including mammography (Berglund, 2000; Dales, 1979) and a trial involving 166,600 women where the only intervention was a prevalence screen and where exclusions after randomisation occurred only in the screened group; previous cancer at any site was an exclusion criterion and more than, 1500 women were excluded from the screened group, 468 because they had already died (Singapore, 1994).

The New York trial (New York, 1963)

The Malmö trial (Malmö, 1976)

The Malmö II trial (Malmö II, 1978)

The Two-County trial (Kopparberg, 1977; Two-County, 1977; Östergötland, 1978)

The Edinburgh trial (Edinburgh, 1978)

The Canadian trial (Canada, 1980; Canada, 1980a; Canada, 1980b)

The Stockholm trial (Stockholm, 1981)

The Göteborg trial (Göteborg, 1982)

The UK age trial (UK age trial, 1991)

Sources of data used for the meta-analyses

Deaths ascribed to breast cancer: Alexander, 1999; Andersson, 1988; Bjurstam, 1997; Bjurstam, 2003; Duffy, 2020a; Frisell, 1997; Habbema, 1986; Miller, 1992a; Miller, 1992b; Miller, 2000; Miller, 2002; Miller, 2014; Moss, 2006; Moss, 2015; Nyström, 1993; Nyström, 1993a; Nyström, 2002; Roberts, 1990; Shapiro, 1977; Shapiro, 1982; Tabar, 1988; Tabar, 1995.

Mortality among breast cancer patients: Tabar, 1988.

Deaths ascribed to cancer, all patients: Andersson, 1988; Aron, 1986; Duffy, 2020a; Miller, 2000; Miller, 2002; Shapiro, 1988; Tabar, 1988.

All-cause mortality: Andersson, 1988; Aron, 1986; Bjurstam, 1997; Duffy, 2020a; Miller, 1992a; Miller, 1992b; Miller, 2000; Miller, 2002; Moss, 2006; Nyström, 2000; Nyström, 2002; Projektgruppen, 1985; Roberts, 1990; Shapiro, 1977; Tabar, 1989.

Mastectomies and lumpectomies: Andersson, 1988; Frisell, 1986; Frisell, 1989a; Miller, 1993; Shapiro, 1972; Tabar, 1999.

Radiotherapy: Andersson, 1988; Benjamin, 1996; Shapiro, 1972; Tabar, 1999. Chemotherapy and hormone therapy: Andersson, 1988; Tabar, 1999.

Number of cancers: Andersson, 1988; Baines, 2016; Bjurstam, 1997; Frisell, 1989a; Miller, 1993; Moss, 2005; Tabar, 1991.

Breast cancer mortality

The main focus in the screening trials was breast cancer mortality, as very large trials are needed to assess the effect on all-cause mortality. We cannot assume, however, that a beneficial effect on breast cancer mortality can be translated into improved overall survival. First, screening may increase mortality because of overdiagnosis and the increased use of radiotherapy. A meta-analysis predicted that overall, radiotherapy is beneficial for women at high risk of local recurrence. However, it is harmful for women at particularly low risk such as those who have their cancers found by screening and those who are overdiagnosed. This is primarily because of damage to the coronary arteries and development of heart failure resulting from at least some types of radiotherapy (EBCTCG, 2000) and because radiotherapy causes lung cancer. A meta-analysis of radiotherapy showed that there was a 27% excess mortality from heart disease and a 78% excess mortality from lung cancer (EBCTCG, 2005a). This excess mortality becomes important when many healthy women are overdiagnosed, even if radiotherapy has been improved and harms reduced since the trials.

Second, assessment of cause of death is susceptible to bias. The authors of the Two-County trial assessed cause of death openly and reported a 24% reduction in breast cancer mortality for Östergötland (Tabar, 2000), whereas a meta-analysis of the Swedish trials based on an official cause of death register reported only a 10% reduction for Östergötland (Nyström, 2002). The trial authors reported 10 fewer deaths from breast cancer in the study group despite slightly longer follow up, and 23 more deaths in the control group. They have not provided a plausible explanation of this large discrepancy (Duffy, 2002; Tabar, 2002). In, 2009, “a complete audit of breast cancer cases and deaths” in the Two-County trial was published, but it is not convincing (Holmberg, 2009). There was no blinding; it was not an independent audit; there was no attempt at producing a new data set based on the clinical records (which were only retrieved “where necessary”); and the Two-County trialists were directly involved with interpretations and resolving disagreements.

The bias seems to favour screening even when cause of death is determined blindly. In the New York trial, differential misclassification might be responsible for about half of the reported breast cancer mortality benefit. A similar number of dubious cases were selected for blinded review from each group, but a much smaller proportion of the screened group were finally classified as having died from breast cancer (Gøtzsche, 2004).

Furthermore, although the mammographic equipment was standard at the time, its performance was poor. Only 15% of 299 cancers in the study group were detected solely by mammography, and mammography did not identify a single case of minimal breast cancer (< 1 cm) (Thomas, 1977). The New York trial reported a 35% reduction in breast cancer mortality after seven years, but we consider it unlikely that it was a true effect.

In conjunction with the first meta-analysis of the Swedish trials, causes of death were reclassified blindly in some patients (Nyström, 1993). Breast cancer was considered the underlying cause of death in 419 of the screened group and 409 of the control group according to Statistics Sweden, and in 418 and 425 cases according to the committee (Nyström, 1993). The fact that all 17 reclassifications favoured the screened group suggests differential misclassification. This bias is difficult to avoid (Gøtzsche, 2001). Early cancers are treated by lumpectomy and radiotherapy, and radiotherapy reduces the rates of local recurrence by about two-thirds (EBCTCG, 2000). This might increase the likelihood that deaths among screen-detected breast cancer cases will be misclassified as deaths from other causes (EBCTCG, 1995) and that too many deaths in the control group will be misclassified as breast cancer deaths. In fact, for the Swedish trials it was stated that “most patients with locally advanced disease will die due to cancer” and that breast cancer as the underlying cause of death includes women with locally advanced breast cancer, whereas women who have been treated successfully should not be classified as having breast cancer deaths if another specified disease could be the cause of death (Nyström, 2000). The use of an official cause of death register as in more recent meta-analyses (Nyström, 2002) cannot solve these problems.

Postrandomisation exclusion of women who already had breast cancer at the time of entry to the trial is another possible source of bias. The exclusions were sometimes made many years after the trial started, or even after it had ended. In the Two-County trial, only women who were considered to have died from breast cancer were excluded (Nixon, 2000), a highly bias-prone process because those assessing cause of death were not blinded for screening status. Furthermore, the process seemed not to have been adequately monitored as it was not possible to identify prior breast cancers in Östergötland, by cluster (Nixon, 2000). It should therefore not be possible to do analyses that respect the clustering with those women excluded, although such analyses have been reported (Tabar, 1989; Tabar, 1990; Tabar, 1991; Tabar, 1995). A study that used the same registers as those used by the trialists found that a large number of breast cancer cases and deaths seemed to be missing in reports on the Two-County trial (Zahl, 2006). Another study found that the large reduction in breast cancer mortality agreed poorly with the cancer stages that were reported (Zahl, 2001).

The largest effects on breast cancer mortality were reported in trials that had long intervals between screenings (Two-County trial), invited a large fraction of the women to only two or three screenings (Two-County and Stockholm trials), started systematic screening of the control group after three to five years (Two-County, Göteborg and Stockholm trials), had only one-view mammography rather than two views (Two-County trial), and that had poor equipment for mammography (New York trial); and the cancers found with mammography were considerably smaller in the Canadian trial than in the Two-County trial (Narod, 1997). This suggests that differences in reported effects are related to the risk of bias in the trials rather than to the quality of the mammograms or the screening programmes. The sensitivity of mammographic readings in the trials that followed the New York trial has not consistently improved (Fletcher, 1993; IARC, 2002) and meta-analyses have failed to find an association between mammographic quality and breast cancer mortality (Glasziou, 1995; Kerlikowske, 1995). A meta-analysis found that the effect of screening was largest in those trials that found fewest node-positive cancers in the screened group relative to the control group (Gøtzsche, 2011). However, the regression line was in the wrong place. A screening effectiveness of zero (same proportion of node-positive cancers in the screened group as in the control group) predicted a 16% reduction in breast cancer mortality after 13 years (95% CI 9% to 23% reduction). This can only occur if there is bias, and there was bias for both variables, assessment of cause of death and of the number of node-positive cancers.

Several of the trials had clinical examination or regular self-examination of the breasts as part of their design (see ‘Description of studies’) but this is not likely to have had a major influence on the effect estimates. The effect of clinical examination is uncertain, and large randomised trials did not find an effect of self-examination (Kösters, 2003).

Cancer mortality

The major difficulty in assessing cause of death might have occurred when the patients were diagnosed with more than one malignant disease (Miller, 2001). The importance of autopsy is illustrated by the fact that 21% of the women with breast cancer who died in the Malmö trial had two or three types of different cancers (Andersson, 1988a; Janzon, 1991). Patients with cachexia and no signs of recurrence of breast cancer would likely be assigned to another type of cancer.

Since cancer mortality is likely to be less subject to bias than breast cancer mortality, we calculated what the expected cancer mortality (including breast cancer mortality) would be if the reported reduction in breast cancer mortality of 29% after seven years for the suboptimally randomised trials (Analysis 1.1) were true. Weighting the four trials that provided data on number of cancer deaths (Analysis 1.8), the expected risk ratio was 0.95.

However, all-cancer mortality in these trials was not reduced (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.05), and this estimate was higher than what was expected (P = 0.02). This provides further evidence that assessment of cause of death was biased in favour of screening. Data from the Two-County trial (Tabar, 1988) illustrates the misclassification directly (Analysis 1.21)(Gøtzsche, 2004). Among women with a diagnosis of breast cancer, mortality for other cancers was higher in the screened group and mortality from all other causes also tended to be higher. The increase in mortality for causes other than breast cancer amounts to 38% of the reported decrease in breast cancer mortality in the Kopparberg part of the trial and 56% in the Östergötland part.

It has been shown that belief in the effectiveness of an intervention may influence the decision on which type of cancer caused the patient’s death (Newschaffer, 2000). Also, lethal complications of cancer treatments are often ascribed to other causes. The size of this misclassification is 37% for cancer generally and 9% for breast cancer (Brown, 1993).

For our current update, we could include cancer deaths also from the UK Age trial. Screening still had no effect on cancer mortality, RR 1.00 (95% CI 0.96 to 1.04).

All-cause mortality

The trials were not powered to detect an effect on all-cause mortality, but it is an important outcome since the findings related to breast cancer mortality seem to be biased. The fact that trials including 600,000 women did not have power to show an effect on all-cause mortality clearly indicates the comparatively small effect of the intervention, if any. The complex designs and insufficient reporting precluded us from providing reliable estimates for all-cause mortality in the trials with suboptimal randomisation. Furthermore, these trials had introduced early screening of the control group or had differentially excluded women after randomisation. Incidentally, however, all-cause mortality after 13 years was the same in adequately randomised trials and in suboptimally randomised trials (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.03; and RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.01, respectively). There were many more deaths after 22 years, and RR was now 1.01 (95% CI 0.99 to 1.94) for the adequately randomised trials, which speaks against any mortality benefit of mammography screening.

While the Göteborg trial found a reduction in all-cause mortality (Bjurstam, 2016), being the only trial to do so, it was substantially underpowered to show this, even if its estimated reduction in cause-specific mortality was correct. The reduction in all-cause mortality therefore supports that the trial was biased due to suboptimal randomisation and that its estimated effect on breast cancer mortality is unreliable.

In, 2000, the estimate reported for the four Swedish trials was RR 1.00 (95% CI 0.98 to 1.02) after adjustment for imbalances in age (Nyström, 2000). In, 2002, the authors reported a 2% non-significant reduction in all-cause mortality (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.00) and stated that they would have expected a 2.3% reduction (Nyström, 2002). However, the calculation was incorrect and the expected reduction, given their results, was only 0.9% (Gøtzsche, 2002a). The error has been acknowledged (Nyström, 2002a; The Lancet Erratum, 2002) but the published response to our criticism was also incorrect (Nyström, 2002b). The reported decrease of 2% in total mortality corresponds to a 10% decrease in all-cancer mortality, which is not plausible (see ‘Cancer mortality’ above).

The Östergötland part of the Two-County trial contributed about half of the deaths in the, 2002 report and had a risk ratio for all-cause mortality of 0.98 (Nyström, 2002). The women were randomised to only 24 clusters. In the Edinburgh trial there were 87 clusters, but double as many women in the invited group belonged to the highest socioeconomic level compared to the control group (Alexander, 1994). Socioeconomic factors are strong mortality predictors and could easily explain a 2% reduction in all-cause mortality, but such data remain unpublished and are also unavailable for the other Swedish trials. It has been reported that pretrial breast cancer incidence and breast cancer mortality were similar in the study group and in the control group in Östergötland (Nyström, 2002), but the power of the test was very low (Gøtzsche, 2002a). In contrast, another report found that breast cancer mortality was 15% lower in the invited groups in the Two-Country trial and that correction for this difference changed the estimate of the effect from a 31% reduction to a 27% reduction in breast cancer mortality (Duffy, 2003).

It is not clear why the unadjusted and age-adjusted estimates for all-cause mortality were the same with an RR of 0.98. The, 2002 Swedish meta-analysis comprised 43,343 deaths whereas in the, 2000 meta-analysis of 27,582 deaths the estimates were RR 1.06 (95% CI 1.04 to 1.08) (Gøtzsche, 2000) and RR 1.00 (95% CI 0.98 to 1.02) (Nyström, 2000), with non-overlapping confidence intervals. The Kopparberg part of the Two-County trial was not available for the, 2002 meta-analysis, but this should not have made any difference since the RR for Kopparberg was 1.00 (95% CI 0.96 to 1.04) (Nyström, 2000). The only other difference is that the extended data for the Malmö trial (MSST II) were included, but this trial contributed only 702 deaths (1.6%).

All-cause mortality has been reported to be lower in the Two-County trial when the analysis was confined to women with breast cancer (Tabar, 2002a). Such subgroup analyses are very unreliable, as are similar analyses in historically controlled studies (Tabar, 2001; Tabar, 2003a), since many breast cancer cases in the screened groups will have an excellent prognosis because of overdiagnosis and length bias (Berry, 2002).

Overdiagnosis and overtreatment

Overdiagnosis is an inevitable consequence of cancer screening and a critically important source of harm (IARC, 2002). Screening primarily identifies slow-growing cancers and cell changes that are biologically benign (Doll, 1981; Ernster, 1996; Fox, 1979). This is because slow-growing tumours have existed for longer than fast-growing tumours in the detectable range of tumour sizes and are therefore more likely to be detected at a screening session (length bias). Survival of women with screen-detected cancers is therefore very high, for example 97% in Malmö after 10 years (Janzon, 1991). Even within the same stage, it is higher than for cancers detected clinically (Moody-Ayers, 2000).

The level of overdiagnosis and overtreatment was about 25% in the trials that did not introduce early screening in the control group, and somewhat larger (33%) in the suboptimally randomised trials before the control group screen (Analysis 1.23). This is apart from the New York trial, which is unreliable since far more breast cancer cases were excluded from the screened group than from the control group (Shapiro, 1977; Shapiro, 1982; Shapiro, 1989). The true increase in surgery is considerably larger, however. As the excess surgery in the trials is similar to the increase in diagnoses, reoperations have likely not been included, although many women are operated upon more than once. In New South Wales, for example, one third of women with carcinoma in situ had either mastectomy alone (19%) or after breast conserving surgery (17%) (Kricker, 2000). The method of surgery has changed substantially since the trials were done and less invasive techniques are preferred today. The certainty of the estimates from the trials was downgraded for this reason (indirectness).

Large observational studies support that breast screening causes substantial overdiagnosis and overtreatment. Incidence increases of 40% to 60% since screening was implemented have been reported for Australia, Finland, Norway, Sweden, UK and USA (Barratt, 2005; Douek, 2003; Fletcher, 2003; Gøtzsche, 2004; IARC, 2002; Jonsson, 2005; Morrell, 2010; Ries, 2002; Zahl, 2004. In two additional studies, overdiagnosis was calculated as the percentage of all diagnoses, rather than the percentage of additional diagnoses; correcting for this gives an overdiagnosis of 45% in USA (Bleyer, 2012) and 18-33% in Norway (Kalager, 2012). The Norwegian estimate did not include carcinoma in situ and was also an underestimate for other reasons (Jørgensen, 2012). A small study from Copenhagen claimed that it is possible to screen without overdiagnosis, but it showed the expected prevalence peak, had very little power and provided no statistical analyses in support of the claim (Olsen, 2003). A study that included the whole of Denmark and also non-screened age groups found 33% overdiagnosis (Jørgensen, 2009a). A systematic review that adjusted for decreases in incidence, if any, in older age groups no longer screened, and also for the trend in background incidence, found an overdiagnosis of 35% for invasive cancer and 52% when carcinoma in situ was included, in countries with organised screening programmes (Jørgensen, 2009). Recently, based on long-term follow-up of the Canadian trials, overdiagnosis was estimated at 40% for the 40-49 years age group and 30% for the 50-59 year age group (Baines, 2016).

Data from the UK show that when screening was extended to the age group 65-70 years in, 2001, a sharp rise in invasive breast cancer incidence occurred in these women although they had been offered screening many times when they were younger and had already contributed to a massive increase in the incidence of DCIS and invasive cancers (Jørgensen, 2011). This is difficult to explain unless we assume that many screen-detected cancers would have regressed spontaneously if left alone, which is supported by a study from Norway with a strong design (Zahl, 2008), and by a similarly designed study from Sweden (Zahl, 2011). A US study also suggested that some breast cancers regress, since the incidence declined much too rapidly after the use of hormone replacement therapy stopped (Chlebowski, 2009). Another US study, of the breast cancer incidence and mortality rates during the period, 1975 to, 2000 when screening was introduced found that, in order to explain the observed trends, it was necessary to postulate that approximately 40% of the observed cancers had limited malignant potential and would have regressed if undetected (Fryback, 2006).

Screening increased the number of mastectomies by 20%. Since screening advances the time of diagnosis, a policy change towards more lumpectomies could have led to an overestimate. However, the policy change has occurred slowly (Nattinger, 2000) and even in the period, 1993 to, 1995, 52% of breast surgery in California was mastectomy (Malin, 2002). In Stockholm, the increase in mastectomies was larger after five years of screening (25%) than after the first round (16%), and when screening was introduced in Southeast Netherlands, the rate of breast-conserving surgery increased by 71% while the rate of mastectomy increased by 84% (Gøtzsche, 2002) despite the fact that this study did not include carcinoma in situ. The percentage of cases of carcinoma in situ treated by mastectomy declined from 71% in, 1983 to 40% in, 1993 in USA, but the estimated total numbers of mastectomies for this condition increased almost three-fold (Ernster, 1997). In the UK, mastectomies increased by 36% for invasive cancer and by 422% for carcinoma in situ from, 1990 to, 2001 (Douek, 2003). Carcinoma in situ is more often treated by mastectomy than invasive cancer (Patnick, 2012).

Conversely, use of mammography in the control group would lead to an underestimate of overdiagnosis. In the trials from Malmö and Canada, 24% (Andersson, 1988), 17% (Miller, 1992b) and 26% (Baines, 1994) of the women in the control group reported having received a mammogram during the trial; in the Two-County trial, it was 13% (Tabar, 1985); in the Göteborg trial, 18% of women in the control group received a mammogram in a two-year period during the trial (Bjurstam, 2003). In the Stockholm trial, 25% of those attending the first screening had had a mammogram in the two previous years (Frisell, 1989a), and in the Göteborg trial, as many as 51% of the women in the age group 39-49 had ever received a mammogram (Bjurstam, 1997). It is difficult to understand that this trial, with so much contamination reducing the observed benefit, reported a 45% reduction in breast cancer mortality.

The documented increase in mastectomies contrasts with assertions by trialists (Tabar, 1989), policy makers (Statusrapport, 1997; Swed Cancer Soc, 1996; Westerholm, 1988), websites supported by governmental institutions and advocacy groups (Jørgensen, 2004), and invitational letters sent to women invited to screening (Jørgensen, 2006; Gøtzsche, 2009) that early detection spares patients more aggressive treatments, in particular mastectomy. This is likely because the focus is on an individual woman who is diagnosed earlier and not on the effects of breast screening at the population level. Publications that base their claims on numbers that include the control group screen (Tabar, 2003) are also misleading, as are presentations of relative numbers rather than absolute numbers (Statusrapport, 1997). The proportion of breast preserving operations is said to be increasing, but the trend for the number of mastectomies is not revealed. A small study from Florence, without a control group (Paci, 2002), was also unreliable (Gøtzsche, 2002b). The authors asserted that if screening increased the number of mastectomies, populations in which screening has been introduced should see a subsequent increase.

Obviously, since the mastectomy rate has gone down steadily throughout many years, also in countries without screening, it is only to be expected that the authors found a decrease in the mastectomy rate when screening was introduced.

Denmark has a unique control group, as only 20% of the population was screened throughout 17 years. The large increase in mastectomies when screening was introduced has not been compensated later or by a corresponding decline in older age groups (Jørgensen, 2011). A study from Norway has confirmed this (Suhrke, 2011).

Quality assurance programmes could possibly reduce the surgical activity to some degree, but they could also increase it. In the UK, for example, the surgeons were blamed for not having treated even more women with carcinoma in situ by mastectomy (BASO audit, 2000), and the number of women treated by mastectomy almost doubled from, 1998 to, 2008 (Dixon, 2009).

Two to three years after breast cancer treatment, 47% of the women reported pain, usually several times a week (Gärtner, 2009). Only half of those with pain reported that it was mild (corresponding to 1-3 on a 10-point scale). The pain was equally common among those who had had breast-conserving surgery as among those with a mastectomy, and pain was more common when the women had had radiotherapy. Thus, half of all the overdiagnosed women will suffer from chronic pain, presumably for the rest of their lives.

False-positive diagnoses, psychological distress and painful mammograms

False-positive diagnoses can cause considerable and sustained psychological distress (Bülow, 2000; Salz, 2010), not only initially (Brodersen, 2006) but for years after the women are declared free from cancer (Brodersen, 2013). Many women experience anxiety, worry, despondency, sleeping problems, negative impact on sexuality and behaviour, and changes in their relationships with family, friends, and acquaintances as well as in existential values (Brodersen, 2006; Brodersen, 2007; Brodersen, 2013; Salz, 2010). In a large study, the severity of the psychological distress for women with false-positive findings was between that for healthy women and those with breast cancer even three years after they had been declared free from cancer (Brodersen, 2013). Some women will feel more vulnerable about disease and see a doctor more often (Barton, 2001).

In the Stockholm trial, one-third of women with false-positive findings were not declared cancer-free at six months (Lidbrink, 1996). In the UK, women who had been declared cancer-free after additional testing or biopsies were twice as likely to suffer psychological consequences three years later than women who received a clear result after their last mammogram (Brett, 2001). In the USA, three months after they had false-positive results, 47% of women who had highly suspicious readings reported that they had substantial anxiety related to the mammogram, 41% had worries about breast cancer, 26% reported that the worry affected their daily mood, and 17% that it affected their daily function (compared to 3% with a normal mammogram) (Lerman, 1991). In Norway, 18 months after screening mammography 29% of women with false-positive results and 13% of women with negative results reported anxiety about breast cancer (Gram, 1990).

The cumulative risk of a false-positive result after 10 mammograms ranges from about 20% to 60% (Barratt, 2005; Castells, 2006; Christiansen, 2000; Elmore, 1998; Hofvind, 2004; Hubbard, 2011; Johns, 2010; Njor, 2007). It is considerably higher in USA than elsewhere, e.g. the recall rate in women aged 50 to 54 years was 13% to 14% after the first mammogram, compared to 8% in the UK (Smith-Bindman, 2003). The reported percentages are often too low because recalls due to poor technical quality of the mammogram are not included (Hofvind, 2004; Johns, 2010; Njor, 2007), although these women may be just as affected by such recalls as by a real suspicion of cancer (Brodersen, 2006). In USA, 19% would have had a biopsy after 10 mammograms (Elmore, 1998).

Thus, it seems that screening inflicts important psychological distress on more than a quarter of the healthy population of women who attend a screening programme. The women are often not being informed about this risk (Gøtzsche, 2009; Jørgensen, 2004; Jørgensen, 2006; Slaytor, 1998; Werkö, 1995) or the risk of receiving a diagnosis of carcinoma in situ (Gøtzsche, 2009; Jørgensen, 2004; Thornton, 1997).

About half of the women report that it is painful to have a mammogram taken (Armstrong, 2007; Miller, 2002a; McNoe, 1996), and half of the women who decline an invitation to the second round of screening note that the major reason was that their first mammogram was painful (Elwood, 1998).