Evidence map›Paper›PMID 15755947›Full record

ReviewJAMA2005

Screening for breast cancer.

Joann G Elmore, Katrina Armstrong, Constance D Lehman, Suzanne W Fletcher

2 registry-linked trialsAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in JAMA, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 244 papers, 10 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
244citing papers in PubMed, 10 pooled it
30.0field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT00816530 completednot on this mapstarted 2009, after this paper: background citation

A Prospective Multicenter Matched-pair Clinical Study to Evaluate the Sensitivity and Specificity of ABUS and Digital X-Ray Mammography (XRM) Together as a Breast Cancer Screening Method Compared to XRM Alone in Women With >50% Parenchymal Density.

TypeobservationalSponsorU-Systems, Inc.Ran2009 to 2012Enrolled15,679ConditionsBreast CancerArmsAutomated Breast Ultrasound (ABUS) as an adjunct to digital screening mammography
NCT01178736 unknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2011, after this paper: background citation

Efficacy of a Combined Program for Early Detection of Breast and Gynecological Cancers in Low Resource Countries

TypeobservationalSponsorWoman's Cancer FoundationRan2011 to 2014Enrolled36,000ConditionsBreast Neoplasms, Uterine Cervical Neoplasms, Ovarian Neoplasms, Endometrial NeoplasmsArmsBreast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis, Cervical Cancer Screening and Diagnosis, Ovarian Cancer Screening and Diagnosis, Endometrial Cancer Screening and Diagnosis
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

244 citing papers in PubMed, 10 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 1,072 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Guideline
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Trial
  12. Evaluation of Health Belief Model-Based Intervention on Breast Cancer Screening Behaviors among Health Volunteers.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2019
    Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

184 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Joann G ElmoreDepartment of Medicine, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, USA. jelmore@u.washington.edu
Katrina Armstrong
Constance D Lehman
Suzanne W Fletcher
University of Washington · US

Funding

Understanding Variability in Community MammographyR01CA107623 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI ELMORE, JOANN G · 2004 to 2008
$3.7M
Improving Accuracy &Outcomes of Breast Cancer ScreeningK05CA104699 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI ELMORE, JOANN G · 2004 to 2014
$1.2M
NCI NIH HHS K05-CA10469NCI NIH HHS K05 CA104699NCI NIH HHS R01 CA107623
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

contextBreast cancer screening in community practices may be different from that in randomized controlled trials. New screening modalities are becoming available.

objectivesTo review breast cancer screening, especially in the community and to examine evidence about new screening modalities. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTION: English-language articles of randomized controlled trials assessing effectiveness of breast cancer screening were reviewed, as well as meta-analyses, systematic reviews, studies of breast cancer screening in the community, and guidelines. Also, studies of newer screening modalities were assessed. DATA SYNTHESIS: All major US medical organizations recommend screening mammography for women aged 40 years and older. Screening mammography reduces breast cancer mortality by about 20% to 35% in women aged 50 to 69 years and slightly less in women aged 40 to 49 years at 14 years of follow-up. Approximately 95% of women with abnormalities on screening mammograms do not have breast cancer with variability based on such factors as age of the woman and assessment category assigned by the radiologist. Studies comparing full-field digital mammography to screen film have not shown statistically significant differences in cancer detection while the impact on recall rates (percentage of screening mammograms considered to have positive results) was unclear. One study suggested that computer-aided detection increases cancer detection rates and recall rates while a second larger study did not find any significant differences. Screening clinical breast examination detects some cancers missed by mammography, but the sensitivity reported in the community is lower (28% to 36%) than in randomized trials (about 54%). Breast self-examination has not been shown to be effective in reducing breast cancer mortality, but it does increase the number of breast biopsies performed because of false-positives. Magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasound are being studied for screening women at high risk for breast cancer but are not recommended for screening the general population. Sensitivity of magnetic resonance imaging in high-risk women has been found to be much higher than that of mammography but specificity is generally lower. Effect of the magnetic resonance imaging on breast cancer mortality is not known. A balanced discussion of possible benefits and harms of screening should be undertaken with each woman.

conclusionsIn the community, mammography remains the main screening tool while the effectiveness of clinical breast examination and self-examination are less. New screening modalities are unlikely to replace mammography in the near future for screening the general population.

Indexed as

Mass ScreeningBreast NeoplasmsBreast Self-ExaminationDiagnosis, Computer-AssistedFemaleHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMammographyPhysical ExaminationUltrasonography, Mammary

Identifiers

PMID15755947
PMCPMC3149836
OpenAlexW2096663717

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.