Skip to content
DraconiticResearch
Search Sources API
203,234 studies31 sourcesUpdated 36 min ago
Peer-reviewedCC BY-NC-ND 4.0Translational Breast Cancer Research

Breast cancer screening effectiveness and mortality/case-fatality burden: global associations and optimisation pathways based on GBD 2021 and CanScreen5 data

  • Ying Shan1,2,3
  • Shuwan Yu1,2,3
  • Lixiang Yu1,2,3
  • Yifan Yu4
  • Dihui Zhang5
  • Dongxu Liu1,2,3
  • Chao Zheng1,2,3
  • Tianyu Feng6,7
  • Shixue Li8,9
  • Fei Wang1,2,3
  • Zhigang Yu1,2,3
9 affiliations
  1. 1Breast Center, The Second Qilu Hospital of Shandong University, Jinan, China
  2. 2Institute of Translational Medicine of Breast Disease Prevention and Treatment, Shandong University, Jinan, China
  3. 3Shandong Key Laboratory of Cancer Digital Medicine, Jinan, China
  4. 4Department of Mathematics, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA
  5. 5School of Public Health, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA
  6. 6Department of Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Cheeloo College of Medicine, Shandong University, Jinan, China
  7. 7Institute for Medical Dataology, Cheeloo College of Medicine, Shandong University, Jinan, China
  8. 8Centre for Health Management and Policy Research, School of Public Health, Cheeloo College of Medicine, Shandong University, Jinan, China
  9. 9National Health Commission of China (NHC) Key Laboratory of Health Economics and Policy Research, Shandong University, Jinan, China
Read full textDOICite

Abstract

Background: While population-based breast cancer screening (BCS) reduces breast cancer mortality in high-income settings, low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) have increased in breast cancer mortality, driven largely by severe screening inequities and late-stage diagnosis. The relationship between multidimensional BCS effectiveness and national breast cancer mortality and case-fatality outcomes across human-development strata remains poorly characterized. This study aimed to develop a comprehensive Screening Effectiveness Index (SEI), quantify global BCS inequities, and identify context-specific optimisation pathways to reduce the disproportionate breast cancer burden in LMICs.

Methods: We harmonized 2011–2021 BCS program data (including availability, coverage, and performance metrics) from the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) CanScreen5 repository with age-standardized breast cancer burden estimates from the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) Study 2021 (GBD 2021), using the national female population aged 15 years and older as the denominator for all rate calculations. We included 93 countries and territories with complete core data, prioritized mortality and case fatality percentage (CFP) as primary outcomes. We used descriptive statistics and spatial analyses to quantify inequalities, generalized linear models (GLMs) to assess associations between SEI and breast cancer burden, and fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA) to identify configurations influencing SEI.

Results: Population-based BCS programmes existed in 62 of 93 countries and territories (66.7%), almost exclusively concentrated in high- or very high-Human Development Index (HDI) settings. The global median SEI was 13.47 [interquartile range (IQR), 10.70–15.53], with a 4.5-fold difference between the highest-performing country (Netherlands: 25.24) and the lowest (Bangladesh: 5.60). Globally, each 10-point increase in SEI was independently associated with a 2.4% reduction in age-standardized mortality [β=−0.24, 95% confidence interval (CI): −0.41 to −0.07] and a 4.2% reduction in CFP (β=−0.42, 95% CI: −0.73 to −0.11), with the strongest protective effects observed in very high-HDI countries (mortality: β=−0.31, 95% CI: −0.57 to −0.05; CFP: β=−0.59, 95% CI: −0.98 to −0.20). fsQCA revealed three sufficient pathways of high SEI: economy-education-equity (EEE), economy-equality (EE1), and education-equality (EE2).

Conclusions: BCS inequity amplifies the global burden of breast cancer. Context-specific strategies are required: high-income countries (HICs) should optimise investment and technology, while LMICs should prioritise health education and community engagement. Future research should refine SEI determinants in resource-limited settings to enhance screening effectiveness and reduce mortality.

Related

  1. Mammographic screening effectiveness in reducing breast cancer mortality in Sicily, Italy, 2008–2023
    M La Bella, S Scondotto, W Pollina Addario +4
    The European Journal of Public HealthPeer-reviewedCC BY-NC 4.0Full textOncologyPMCEurope PMC
  2. Optimisation of metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) screening algorithm for resource-poor settings using machine learning
    Chamila Mettananda, Kaveesha Sivasumithran, Lakmali Ranaweera +4
    PLOS OnePeer-reviewedCC BY 4.0Full textNeuroscienceEndocrinology & metabolismPLOS
  3. Cost-effectiveness of newborn screening for phenylketonuria and congenital hypothyroidism in Hubei, China.
    Bo Wang, Haohong Zhang, Yanzhi Xia +5
    BMJ openPeer-reviewedCC BY-NCFull textGeneral medicineEurope PMCCrossref
  4. Cost-Effectiveness of Colorectal Cancer Screening Tests: Reply to Response.
    Chris Estes, Paul J Limburg
    Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive OncologyPeer-reviewedCC BY-NC-NDFull textOncologyEurope PMC
  5. Universal cervical length screening and vaginal progesterone: Distinguishing strategy effectiveness from treatment efficacy
    Mira Zethelius, Lina Bergman, Ann‐Catrin Ekelund +9
    Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica ScandinavicaPeer-reviewedCC BYFull textEpidemiology & public healthDOAJ

Cite

BibTeXRIS
BibTeX
@article{shan2026breast,
  title = {{Breast cancer screening effectiveness and mortality/case-fatality burden: global associations and optimisation pathways based on GBD 2021 and CanScreen5 data}},
  author = {Ying Shan and Shuwan Yu and Lixiang Yu and Yifan Yu and Dihui Zhang and Dongxu Liu and Chao Zheng and Tianyu Feng and Shixue Li and Fei Wang and Zhigang Yu},
  journal = {Translational Breast Cancer Research},
  year = {2026},
  month = jun,
  doi = {10.21037/tbcr-2026-0023},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.21037/tbcr-2026-0023},
  note = {CC BY-NC-ND 4.0},
}
RIS
TY  - JOUR
TI  - Breast cancer screening effectiveness and mortality/case-fatality burden: global associations and optimisation pathways based on GBD 2021 and CanScreen5 data
AU  - Ying Shan
AU  - Shuwan Yu
AU  - Lixiang Yu
AU  - Yifan Yu
AU  - Dihui Zhang
AU  - Dongxu Liu
AU  - Chao Zheng
AU  - Tianyu Feng
AU  - Shixue Li
AU  - Fei Wang
AU  - Zhigang Yu
PY  - 2026
DA  - 2026/06/15
JO  - Translational Breast Cancer Research
DO  - 10.21037/tbcr-2026-0023
UR  - https://doi.org/10.21037/tbcr-2026-0023
AB  - Background: While population-based breast cancer screening (BCS) reduces breast cancer mortality in high-income settings, low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) have increased in breast cancer mortality, driven largely by severe screening inequities and late-stage diagnosis. The relationship between multidimensional BCS effectiveness and national breast cancer mortality and case-fatality outcomes across human-development strata remains poorly characterized. This study aimed to develop a comprehensive Screening Effectiveness Index (SEI), quantify global BCS inequities, and identify context-specific optimisation pathways to reduce the disproportionate breast cancer burden in LMICs.  Methods: We harmonized 2011–2021 BCS program data (including availability, coverage, and performance metrics) from the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) CanScreen5 repository with age-standardized breast cancer burden estimates from the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) Study 2021 (GBD 2021), using the national female population aged 15 years and older as the denominator for all rate calculations. We included 93 countries and territories with complete core data, prioritized mortality and case fatality percentage (CFP) as primary outcomes. We used descriptive statistics and spatial analyses to quantify inequalities, generalized linear models (GLMs) to assess associations between SEI and breast cancer burden, and fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA) to identify configurations influencing SEI.  Results: Population-based BCS programmes existed in 62 of 93 countries and territories (66.7%), almost exclusively concentrated in high- or very high-Human Development Index (HDI) settings. The global median SEI was 13.47 [interquartile range (IQR), 10.70–15.53], with a 4.5-fold difference between the highest-performing country (Netherlands: 25.24) and the lowest (Bangladesh: 5.60). Globally, each 10-point increase in SEI was independently associated with a 2.4% reduction in age-standardized mortality [β=−0.24, 95% confidence interval (CI): −0.41 to −0.07] and a 4.2% reduction in CFP (β=−0.42, 95% CI: −0.73 to −0.11), with the strongest protective effects observed in very high-HDI countries (mortality: β=−0.31, 95% CI: −0.57 to −0.05; CFP: β=−0.59, 95% CI: −0.98 to −0.20). fsQCA revealed three sufficient pathways of high SEI: economy-education-equity (EEE), economy-equality (EE1), and education-equality (EE2).  Conclusions: BCS inequity amplifies the global burden of breast cancer. Context-specific strategies are required: high-income countries (HICs) should optimise investment and technology, while LMICs should prioritise health education and community engagement. Future research should refine SEI determinants in resource-limited settings to enhance screening effectiveness and reduce mortality.
SN  - 2218-6778
ER  -