The main aim of mammographic screening is to reduce the mortality from breast cancer. However, use of ionizing radiation is considered a potential harm due to the possible risk of inducing cancer in healthy women.
Purpose
To estimate the potential number of radiation-induced breast cancers, radiation-induced breast cancer deaths, and lives saved due to implementation of organized mammographic screening as performed in Norway.
Material and Methods
We used a previously published excess absolute risk model which assumes a linear no-threshold dose-response. The estimates were calculated for 100,000 women aged 50–69 years, a screening interval of 2 years, and with an assumed follow-up until the age of 85 or 105 years. Radiation doses of 0.7, 2.5, and 5.7 mGy per screening examination, a latency time of 5 or 10 years, and a dose and dose-rate effectiveness factor (DDREF) of 1 or 2 were applied.
Results
The total lifetime risk of radiation-induced breast cancers per 100,000 women was 10 (95% CI: 4–25) if the women were followed from the ages of 50 to 85 years, for a dose of 2.5 mGy, a latency time of 10 years, and a DDREF of 1. For the same parameter values the number of radiation-induced breast cancer death was 1 (95% CI: 0–2). The assumed number of lives saved is approximately 350.
Conclusion
The risk of radiation-induced breast cancer and breast cancer death due to mammographic screening is minimal. Women should not be discouraged from attending screening due to fear of radiation-induced breast cancer death.
Independent UK Panel on Breast Cancer Screening. The benefits and harms of breast cancer screening: an independent review. Lancet2012; 380: 1778–1786.
2.
YaffeMJMainprizeJG. Risk of radiation-induced breast cancer from mammographic screening. Radiology2011; 258: 98–105.
3.
PrestonDLMattssonAHolmbergE. Radiation effects on breast cancer risk: a pooled analysis of eight cohorts. Radiat Res2002; 158: 220–235.
4.
de GelderRDraismaGHeijnsdijkEA. Population-based mammography screening below age 50: balancing radiation-induced vs prevented breast cancer deaths. Br J Cancer2011; 104: 1214–1220.
5.
United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR). Volume I: Report to the General Assembly. Scientific Annex A. Epidemiological studies of radiation and cancer. New York, NY: United Nations; 2006. See http://www.unscear.org/docs/reports/2006/07-82087_Report_Annex_A_2006_Web_corr.pdf (last checked 11 October 2013).
HeyesGJMillAJCharlesMW. Mammography-oncogenecity at low doses. J Radiol Prot2009; 29: A123–132.
8.
BrennerDJDollRGoodheadDT. Cancer risks attributable to low doses of ionizing radiation: assessing what we really know. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A2003; 100: 13761–13766.
9.
International Commission on Radiological Protection. The 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP Publication 103. Ann ICRP2007, pp. 37–37.
FeigSAHendrickRE. Radiation risk from screening mammography of women aged 40-49 years. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr1997, pp. 119–124.
12.
HofvindSGellerBVacekPM. Using the European guidelines to evaluate the Norwegian Breast Cancer Screening Program. Eur J Epidemiol2007; 22: 447–455.
13.
HaugeIHPedersenKSanderudA. Patient doses from screen-film and full-field digital mammography in a population-based screening programme. Radiat Prot Dosimetry2012; 148: 65–73.
National Academy of Sciences. Health risks from exposure to low levels of ionizing radiation: BEIR VII, Phase 2. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2006. See http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=030909156X (last checked 11 October 2013).
HofvindSUrsinGTretliS. Breast cancer mortality in participants of the Norwegian Breast Cancer Screening Program. Cancer2013; 119: 3106–112.
18.
WallBFHaylockRJansenJTM. HPA-CRCE-028 - Radiation Risks from Medical X-ray Examinations as a Function of the Age and Sex of the Patient, London: Public Health England, 2011.
19.
ICRP. Low-dose extrapolation of radiation-related cancer risk. ICRP Publication 99. Ann ICRP2005; 35: 1–141.
20.
DauerLTBrooksALHoelDG. Review and evaluation of updated research on the health effects associated with low-dose ionising radiation. Radiat Prot Dosimetry2010; 140: 103–136.
21.
KathrenRL. Pathway to a paradigm: the linear nonthreshold dose-response model in historical context. The American Academy of Health Physics 1995 Radiology Centennial Hartman Oration. Health Phys1996; 70: 621–635.
22.
ScottBR. Low-dose radiation risk extrapolation fallacy associated with the linear-no-threshold model. Hum Exp Toxicol2008; 27: 163–168.
23.
TubianaMFeinendegenLEYangC. The linear no-threshold relationship is inconsistent with radiation biologic and experimental data. Radiology2009; 251: 13–22.
24.
BrennerDJSawantSGHandeMP. Routine screening mammography: how important is the radiation-risk side of the benefit-risk equation?Int J Radiat Biol2002; 78: 1065–1067.
25.
ScottBR. It’s time for a new low-dose-radiation risk assessment paradigm–one that acknowledges hormesis. Dose Response2008; 6: 333–351.
26.
WakefordR. Cancer risk modelling and radiological protection. J Radiol Prot2012; 32: N89–93.
27.
ShoreRE. Low-dose radiation epidemiology studies: status and issues. Health Phys2009; 97: 481–486.
28.
PrestonDLShimizuYPierceDA. Studies of mortality of atomic bomb survivors. Report 13: Solid cancer and noncancer disease mortality: 1950–1997. Radiat Res2003; 160: 381–407.
29.
AverbeckD. Does scientific evidence support a change from the LNT model for low-dose radiation risk extrapolation?Health Phys2009; 97: 493–504.
30.
HeyesGJMillAJCharlesMW. Enhanced biological effectiveness of low energy X-rays and implications for the UK breast screening programme. Br J Radiol2006; 79: 195–200.
31.
TubianaM. Dose-effect relationship and estimation of the carcinogenic effects of low doses of ionizing radiation: the joint report of the Academie des Sciences (Paris) and of the Academie Nationale de Medecine. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys2005; 63: 317–319.
32.
HendeeWRO’ConnorMK. Radiation risks of medical imaging: separating fact from fantasy. Radiology2012; 264: 312–321.
33.
AurengoAAverbeckDBonninA. Dose-effect relationships and estimation of the carcinogenic effects of low doses of ionizing radiation, Paris: Medicine Academy of Sciences-National Academy of Medicine, 2005.
34.
MathewsJDForsytheAVBradyZ. Cancer risk in 680 000 people exposed to computed tomography scans in childhood or adolescence: data linkage study of 11 million Australians. BMJ2013; 346: f2360–f2360.
35.
EngholmGFerlayJChristensenN. NORDCAN–a Nordic tool for cancer information, planning, quality control and research. Acta Oncol2010; 49: 725–736.
36.
Engholm G, Ferlay J, Christensen N, et al. NORDCAN: Cancer Incidence, Mortality, Prevalence and Survival in the Nordic Countries, Version 5.3 (25.04.2013). Association of the Nordic Cancer Registries. Danish Cancer Society See http://www.ancr.nu (last checked 11 October 2013).
