The aim of this study was to quantify the impact of organised mammography screening on breast cancer mortality across European regions. Therefore, a systematic review was performed including different types of studies from all European regions and stringently used clearly defined quality appraisal to summarise the best evidence. Six databases were searched including Embase, Medline and Web of Science from inception to March 2018. To identify all eligible studies which assessed the effect of organised screening on breast cancer mortality, two reviewers independently applied predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Original studies in English with a minimum follow-up of five years that were randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or observational studies were included. The Cochrane risk of bias instrument and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale were used to assess the risk of bias. Of the 5015 references initially retrieved, 60 were included in the final analysis. Those comprised 36 cohort studies, 17 case-control studies and 7 RCTs. None were from Eastern Europe. The quality of the included studies varied: Nineteen of these studies were of very good or good quality. Of those, the reduction in breast cancer mortality in attenders versus non-attenders ranged between 33% and 43% (Northern Europe), 43%-45% (Southern Europe) and 12%-58% (Western Europe). The estimates ranged between 4% and 31% in invited versus non-invited. This systematic review provides evidence that organised screening reduces breast cancer mortality in all European regions where screening was implemented and monitored, while quantification is still lacking for Eastern Europe. The wide range of estimates indicates large differences in the evaluation designs between studies, rather than in the effectiveness of screening.

Currently, all European countries offer some form of breast cancer screening. Nevertheless, disparities exist in the status of implementation, attendance and the extent of opportunistic screening. As a result, breast cancer screening has not yet reached its full potential. We examined how many breast cancer deaths could be prevented if all European countries would biennially screen all women aged 50 to 69 for breast cancer. We calculated the number of breast cancer deaths already prevented due to screening as well as the number of breast cancer deaths which could be additionally prevented if the total examination coverage (organised plus opportunistic) would reach 100%. The calculations are based on total examination coverage in women aged 50 to 69, the annual number of breast cancer deaths for women aged 50 to 74 and the maximal possible mortality reduction from breast cancer, assuming similar effectiveness of organised and opportunistic screening. The total examination coverage ranged from 49% (East), 62% (West), 64% (North) to 69% (South). Yearly 21 680 breast cancer deaths have already been prevented due to mammography screening. If all countries would reach 100% examination coverage, 12 434 additional breast cancer deaths could be prevented annually, with the biggest potential in Eastern Europe. With maximum coverage, 23% of their breast cancer deaths could be additionally prevented, while in Western Europe it could be 21%, in Southern Europe 15% and in Northern Europe 9%. Our study illustrates that by further optimising screening coverage, the number of breast cancer deaths in Europe can be lowered substantially.

The main benefit of breast cancer (BC) screening is a reduction in mortality from BC. However, screening also causes harms such as overdiagnosis and false-positive results. The balance between benefits and harms varies by age. This study aims to assess how harm-to-benefit ratios of BC screening vary by age in the Netherlands, Finland, Italy and Slovenia. Using microsimulation models, we simulated biennial screening with 100% attendance at varying ages for cohorts of women followed over a lifetime. The number of overdiagnoses, false-positive diagnoses, BC deaths averted and life-years gained (LYG) were calculated per 1000 women. We compared four strategies (50–69, 45–69, 45–74 and 50–74) by calculating four harm-to-benefit ratios, respectively. Compared to the reference strategy 50–69, screening women at 45–74 or 50–74 years would be less beneficial in any of the four countries than screening women at 45–69, which would result in relatively fewer overdiagnoses per death averted or LYG. At the same time, false-positive results per death averted would increase substantially. Adapting the age range of BC screening is an option to improve harm-to-benefit ratios in all four countries. Prioritization of considered harms and benefits affects the interpretation of results.

Multiple reviews demonstrated high variability in effectiveness and cost-effectiveness outcomes among studies on breast cancer screening (BCS) programmes. No study to our knowledge has summarized the current evidence on determinants of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the most used BCS approaches or tried to explain differences in conclusions of systematic reviews on this topic. Based on published reviews, this systematic review aims to assess the degree of variability of determinants for (a) effectiveness and (b) cost-effectiveness of BCS programmes using mammography, clinical breast examination, breast self-examination, ultrasonography, or their combinations among the general population. We will perform a comprehensive systematic literature search in Cochrane, Scopus, Embase, and Medline (via Pubmed). The search will be supplemented with hand searching of references of the included reviews, with hand searching in the specialized journals, and by contacting prominent experts in the field. Additional search for grey literature will be conducted on the websites of international cancer associations and networks. Two trained research assistants will screen titles and abstracts of publications independently, with at least random 10% of all abstracts being also screened by the principal researcher. The full texts of the systematic reviews will then be screened independently by two authors, and disagreements will be solved by consensus. The included reviews will be grouped by publication year, outcomes, designs of original studies, and quality. Additionally, for reviews published since 2011, transparency in reporting will be assessed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist for the review on determinants of effectiveness and a modified PRISMA checklist for the review on determinants for cost-effectiveness. The study will apply the Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews checklist to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. We will report the data extracted from the systematic reviews in a systematic format. Meta-meta-analysis of extracted data will be conducted when feasible. This systematic review of reviews will examine the degree of variability in the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of BCS programmes. PROSPERO CRD42016050764 and CRD42016050765