在基于人群的筛查中,分级和定义对导管原位癌的过度诊断:一项模型研究。

IF 7.9 2区 医学 Q1 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
Keris Poelhekken, Marcel J W Greuter, Bert van der Vegt, Monique D Dorrius, Geertruida H de Bock
{"title":"在基于人群的筛查中,分级和定义对导管原位癌的过度诊断:一项模型研究。","authors":"Keris Poelhekken, Marcel J W Greuter, Bert van der Vegt, Monique D Dorrius, Geertruida H de Bock","doi":"10.1016/j.breast.2025.104594","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>To estimate ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) overdiagnosis overall and by grade in population-based screening and to determine the variation in overdiagnosis estimates by definition.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Using a fully validated micro-simulation Markov model for DCIS (SimDCIS), the number, rate, and proportion of DCIS overdiagnoses were estimated overall and by grade. Overdiagnoses comprised excess DCIS cases in the screened versus the unscreened population; overdiagnosis rate equaled the number of DCIS overdiagnoses per 100,000 screened women; and DCIS overdiagnosis proportion equaled overdiagnosed DCIS divided by total diagnosed DCIS in the screened population. Base estimates for overdiagnosed DCIS were from a population perspective (ages 50-100 years) and included screen-detected, clinically detected, or progressed DCIS (i.e., invasive breast cancer with DCIS precursor). Overdiagnosis was also estimated for alternative definitions and perspectives. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to estimate uncertainty.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Base definitions yielded an overdiagnosis rate of 38.1 (range, 25.7-58.7) per 100,000 screened women and a proportion of 20 % (range 13 %-30 %). Stratification by grade showed 24 %, 20 %, and 18 % proportion overdiagnosis for grades 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Varying the definition led to overdiagnosis estimates from 18 % to 94 %; these overdiagnosis estimates increased by 36 %-49 % when excluding invasive breast cancer and by 54 %-71 % when including only screen-detected DCIS. Individual perspective estimates were 12 % higher than population perspective estimates.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In biennial screening, approximately 1 in 5 DCIS is overdiagnosed, but with minimal variation between grades. A consensus definition and perspective for overdiagnosis would reduce the observed variation in DCIS overdiagnosis estimates.</p>","PeriodicalId":9093,"journal":{"name":"Breast","volume":"84 ","pages":"104594"},"PeriodicalIF":7.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Overdiagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ by grade and definition in population-based screening: A modeling study.\",\"authors\":\"Keris Poelhekken, Marcel J W Greuter, Bert van der Vegt, Monique D Dorrius, Geertruida H de Bock\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.breast.2025.104594\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>To estimate ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) overdiagnosis overall and by grade in population-based screening and to determine the variation in overdiagnosis estimates by definition.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Using a fully validated micro-simulation Markov model for DCIS (SimDCIS), the number, rate, and proportion of DCIS overdiagnoses were estimated overall and by grade. Overdiagnoses comprised excess DCIS cases in the screened versus the unscreened population; overdiagnosis rate equaled the number of DCIS overdiagnoses per 100,000 screened women; and DCIS overdiagnosis proportion equaled overdiagnosed DCIS divided by total diagnosed DCIS in the screened population. Base estimates for overdiagnosed DCIS were from a population perspective (ages 50-100 years) and included screen-detected, clinically detected, or progressed DCIS (i.e., invasive breast cancer with DCIS precursor). Overdiagnosis was also estimated for alternative definitions and perspectives. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to estimate uncertainty.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Base definitions yielded an overdiagnosis rate of 38.1 (range, 25.7-58.7) per 100,000 screened women and a proportion of 20 % (range 13 %-30 %). Stratification by grade showed 24 %, 20 %, and 18 % proportion overdiagnosis for grades 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Varying the definition led to overdiagnosis estimates from 18 % to 94 %; these overdiagnosis estimates increased by 36 %-49 % when excluding invasive breast cancer and by 54 %-71 % when including only screen-detected DCIS. Individual perspective estimates were 12 % higher than population perspective estimates.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In biennial screening, approximately 1 in 5 DCIS is overdiagnosed, but with minimal variation between grades. A consensus definition and perspective for overdiagnosis would reduce the observed variation in DCIS overdiagnosis estimates.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9093,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Breast\",\"volume\":\"84 \",\"pages\":\"104594\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":7.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-10-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Breast\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.breast.2025.104594\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Breast","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.breast.2025.104594","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:在基于人群的筛查中,估计导管原位癌(DCIS)的总体和分级过度诊断,并根据定义确定过度诊断估计的变化。方法:采用完全验证的DCIS微观模拟马尔可夫模型(SimDCIS),对DCIS过度诊断的数量、率和比例进行总体和分级估计。过度诊断包括筛查人群中DCIS病例多于未筛查人群;过度诊断率等于每10万名接受筛查的妇女中DCIS的过度诊断率;DCIS的过度诊断比例等于筛查人群中过度诊断的DCIS除以总诊断的DCIS。过度诊断DCIS的基本估计来自人群角度(50-100岁),包括筛查、临床检测或进展的DCIS(即浸润性乳腺癌伴DCIS前体)。对不同定义和观点的过度诊断也进行了估计。采用单变量和概率敏感性分析来估计不确定性。结果:基本定义产生的过度诊断率为38.1(范围,25.7-58.7)/ 100,000筛查妇女,比例为20%(范围,13% - 30%)。分级显示,1级、2级和3级的过度诊断比例分别为24%、20%和18%。改变定义导致过度诊断估计从18%增加到94%;当排除浸润性乳腺癌时,这些过度诊断估计增加了36% - 49%,当仅包括筛查发现的DCIS时,这些过度诊断估计增加了54% - 71%。个人角度的估计比总体角度的估计高12%。结论:在两年一次的筛查中,大约1 / 5的DCIS被过度诊断,但分级之间的差异很小。对过度诊断的一致定义和观点将减少DCIS过度诊断估计中观察到的差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Overdiagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ by grade and definition in population-based screening: A modeling study.

Aim: To estimate ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) overdiagnosis overall and by grade in population-based screening and to determine the variation in overdiagnosis estimates by definition.

Methods: Using a fully validated micro-simulation Markov model for DCIS (SimDCIS), the number, rate, and proportion of DCIS overdiagnoses were estimated overall and by grade. Overdiagnoses comprised excess DCIS cases in the screened versus the unscreened population; overdiagnosis rate equaled the number of DCIS overdiagnoses per 100,000 screened women; and DCIS overdiagnosis proportion equaled overdiagnosed DCIS divided by total diagnosed DCIS in the screened population. Base estimates for overdiagnosed DCIS were from a population perspective (ages 50-100 years) and included screen-detected, clinically detected, or progressed DCIS (i.e., invasive breast cancer with DCIS precursor). Overdiagnosis was also estimated for alternative definitions and perspectives. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to estimate uncertainty.

Results: Base definitions yielded an overdiagnosis rate of 38.1 (range, 25.7-58.7) per 100,000 screened women and a proportion of 20 % (range 13 %-30 %). Stratification by grade showed 24 %, 20 %, and 18 % proportion overdiagnosis for grades 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Varying the definition led to overdiagnosis estimates from 18 % to 94 %; these overdiagnosis estimates increased by 36 %-49 % when excluding invasive breast cancer and by 54 %-71 % when including only screen-detected DCIS. Individual perspective estimates were 12 % higher than population perspective estimates.

Conclusion: In biennial screening, approximately 1 in 5 DCIS is overdiagnosed, but with minimal variation between grades. A consensus definition and perspective for overdiagnosis would reduce the observed variation in DCIS overdiagnosis estimates.

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
Breast
Breast 医学-妇产科学
CiteScore
8.70
自引率
2.60%
发文量
165
审稿时长
59 days
期刊介绍: The Breast is an international, multidisciplinary journal for researchers and clinicians, which focuses on translational and clinical research for the advancement of breast cancer prevention, diagnosis and treatment of all stages.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信