患者观点:对乳腺癌高危妇女进行强化筛查是循证医学还是假的?

Kathleen A Fairman
{"title":"患者观点:对乳腺癌高危妇女进行强化筛查是循证医学还是假的?","authors":"Kathleen A Fairman","doi":"10.1177/17455057241307089","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In 2023, a breast cancer risk assessment and a subsequent positive test for the BRCA-2 genetic mutation brought me to the uncomfortable intersection of a longstanding career as an advocate for high-quality medical evidence to support shared patient-provider decision making and a new role as a high-risk patient. My search for studies of available risk-management options revealed that the most commonly recommended approach for women with a ⩾20% lifetime breast cancer risk, intensive screening including annual mammography and/or magnetic resonance imaging beginning at age 25-40 years, was supported only by cancer-detection statistics, with almost no evidence on patient-centered outcomes-mortality, physical and psychological morbidity, or quality of life-compared with standard screening or a surgical alternative, bilateral risk-reducing mastectomy. In this commentary, I explore parallels between the use of the intensive screening protocol and another longstanding women's health recommendation based on limited evidence, the use of hormone therapy (HT) for postmenopausal chronic disease prevention, which was sharply curtailed after the publication of the groundbreaking Women's Health Initiative trial in 2002. These declines in HT utilization were followed by marked decreases in breast cancer incidence, providing a compelling lesson on the critical importance of a solid evidentiary basis for women's health decisions. Known harms accompanying the benefits of breast screening-overdiagnosis, psychological effects, and mammography-associated radiation-exposure risks-make empirical measurement of patient-centered outcomes essential. Yet, published research on intensive screening of women at high breast cancer risk has largely ignored these outcomes, leaving patients, providers, and guideline developers lacking the evidence needed for best practice. Outcomes research is both feasible and urgently needed to inform care decisions and health policy for this patient population.</p>","PeriodicalId":75327,"journal":{"name":"Women's health (London, England)","volume":"21 ","pages":"17455057241307089"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11742163/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Patient perspective: Is intensive screening of women at high risk of breast cancer evidence-based medicine or <i>déjà vu</i>?\",\"authors\":\"Kathleen A Fairman\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/17455057241307089\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>In 2023, a breast cancer risk assessment and a subsequent positive test for the BRCA-2 genetic mutation brought me to the uncomfortable intersection of a longstanding career as an advocate for high-quality medical evidence to support shared patient-provider decision making and a new role as a high-risk patient. My search for studies of available risk-management options revealed that the most commonly recommended approach for women with a ⩾20% lifetime breast cancer risk, intensive screening including annual mammography and/or magnetic resonance imaging beginning at age 25-40 years, was supported only by cancer-detection statistics, with almost no evidence on patient-centered outcomes-mortality, physical and psychological morbidity, or quality of life-compared with standard screening or a surgical alternative, bilateral risk-reducing mastectomy. In this commentary, I explore parallels between the use of the intensive screening protocol and another longstanding women's health recommendation based on limited evidence, the use of hormone therapy (HT) for postmenopausal chronic disease prevention, which was sharply curtailed after the publication of the groundbreaking Women's Health Initiative trial in 2002. These declines in HT utilization were followed by marked decreases in breast cancer incidence, providing a compelling lesson on the critical importance of a solid evidentiary basis for women's health decisions. Known harms accompanying the benefits of breast screening-overdiagnosis, psychological effects, and mammography-associated radiation-exposure risks-make empirical measurement of patient-centered outcomes essential. Yet, published research on intensive screening of women at high breast cancer risk has largely ignored these outcomes, leaving patients, providers, and guideline developers lacking the evidence needed for best practice. Outcomes research is both feasible and urgently needed to inform care decisions and health policy for this patient population.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":75327,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Women's health (London, England)\",\"volume\":\"21 \",\"pages\":\"17455057241307089\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11742163/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Women's health (London, England)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/17455057241307089\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Women's health (London, England)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17455057241307089","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

2023年,一份乳腺癌风险评估,以及随后的BRCA-2基因突变阳性检测,让我来到了一个不舒服的交叉点,一方面我一直倡导高质量的医学证据,以支持患者-提供者的共同决策,另一方面我又扮演了一个高风险患者的新角色。我对可用风险管理选择的研究的搜索显示,对于小于或等于20%终生乳腺癌风险的妇女,最常推荐的方法,从25-40岁开始的强化筛查,包括每年乳房x光检查和/或磁共振成像,只有癌症检测统计数据支持,几乎没有证据表明以患者为中心的结果-死亡率,身体和心理发病率,或生活质量与标准筛查或手术替代,双侧降低风险的乳房切除术。在这篇评论中,我探讨了强化筛查方案的使用与另一项基于有限证据的长期妇女健康建议之间的相似之处,即使用激素疗法(HT)预防绝经后慢性疾病,在2002年开创性的妇女健康倡议试验发表后,这种疗法被大幅削减。在激素疗法使用率下降之后,乳腺癌发病率显著下降,这就提供了一个令人信服的教训,说明为妇女的健康决策提供坚实的证据基础至关重要。已知的危害伴随着乳房筛查的好处——过度诊断、心理影响和乳房x光检查相关的辐射暴露风险——使得以患者为中心的结果的经验测量变得至关重要。然而,已发表的关于乳腺癌高危妇女密集筛查的研究在很大程度上忽略了这些结果,使患者、提供者和指南制定者缺乏最佳实践所需的证据。结果研究既是可行的,也是迫切需要的,以便为这一患者群体的护理决策和卫生政策提供信息。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Patient perspective: Is intensive screening of women at high risk of breast cancer evidence-based medicine or déjà vu?

In 2023, a breast cancer risk assessment and a subsequent positive test for the BRCA-2 genetic mutation brought me to the uncomfortable intersection of a longstanding career as an advocate for high-quality medical evidence to support shared patient-provider decision making and a new role as a high-risk patient. My search for studies of available risk-management options revealed that the most commonly recommended approach for women with a ⩾20% lifetime breast cancer risk, intensive screening including annual mammography and/or magnetic resonance imaging beginning at age 25-40 years, was supported only by cancer-detection statistics, with almost no evidence on patient-centered outcomes-mortality, physical and psychological morbidity, or quality of life-compared with standard screening or a surgical alternative, bilateral risk-reducing mastectomy. In this commentary, I explore parallels between the use of the intensive screening protocol and another longstanding women's health recommendation based on limited evidence, the use of hormone therapy (HT) for postmenopausal chronic disease prevention, which was sharply curtailed after the publication of the groundbreaking Women's Health Initiative trial in 2002. These declines in HT utilization were followed by marked decreases in breast cancer incidence, providing a compelling lesson on the critical importance of a solid evidentiary basis for women's health decisions. Known harms accompanying the benefits of breast screening-overdiagnosis, psychological effects, and mammography-associated radiation-exposure risks-make empirical measurement of patient-centered outcomes essential. Yet, published research on intensive screening of women at high breast cancer risk has largely ignored these outcomes, leaving patients, providers, and guideline developers lacking the evidence needed for best practice. Outcomes research is both feasible and urgently needed to inform care decisions and health policy for this patient population.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信