ArticleJournal of clinical pathology2003
Measures of benefit for breast screening from the pathology database for Scotland, 1991-2001.
Article in Journal of clinical pathology, 2003. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Screen detection of ductal carcinoma in situ and subsequent incidence of invasive interval breast cancers: a retrospective population-based study.The Lancet. Oncology · 2016Article
- Rare Breast Malignancy Subtypes: A Cytological, Histological, and Immunohistochemical Correlation.Nigerian journal of surgery : official publication of the Nigerian Surgical Research SocietyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsTo examine pathology characteristics of breast cancers detected by mammography screening over 10 years in Scotland, and compare the nature of cancer yields after different levels of very small invasive cancer at prevalence detection.
methodsA pathology database of cancers from mammography screening of women aged 50-64 years invited every three years was used to assess the variation over time in annual yield of different invasive cancer sizes. Screening centres were compared for incidence screen yields, according to sizes, histological type, grade, and node status.
resultsThere was a significant trend over time for increased detection of < 15 mm cancers among 2353 prevalence cancers, and a significant trend for increase in all size groups, < 10, 10-14, < 15, and >or= 15 mm, among 2245 incidence cancers. Based on individual screening centres, there was a significant negative relation between proportions of very small (< 10 mm) cancers at prevalence screens and of large (>or= 15 mm) cancers at incidence screens of the same "cohort" three years later. There was no significant relation on the same centre basis for worse pathology characteristics (histological no special type, high grade, and positive node status) in cancers detected in the same "cohort" three years later.
conclusionsSensitive mammography screening has a significant effect on the nature of yields at subsequent screens. Length of screening interval and consistency in pathologist opinions are factors that account for lack of effect on incidence cancer qualitative pathology characteristics. These issues are relevant to the use of such characteristics as surrogate measures of service screening performance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.