Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17054145›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2006

Screening for breast cancer with mammography.

P C Gøtzsche, M Nielsen

Registry-linked trialAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03077191 (Toxicity and Outcome of Whole Breast Hypofractionated Radiotherapy Without Boost), which is not on this map. Cited by 90 papers, 10 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
90citing papers in PubMed, 10 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

NCT03077191 active not recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2016, after this paper: background citation

Toxicity and Outcome of Whole Breast Hypofractionated Radiotherapy Without Boost: Results of a Homogeneous Single Institution Experience

TypeobservationalSponsorIRCCS San RaffaeleRan2016 to 2026Enrolled410ConditionsBreast Cancer, Quality of Life, Radiotherapy, Adverse Effect, Dermatitis or EczemaArmsQuality of life measurement
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

90 citing papers in PubMed, 10 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 259 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Screening programmes for the early detection and prevention of oral cancer.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2013
    Pooled it
  3. Screening for breast cancer with mammography.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2013
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. 2008 update of the guideline: early detection of breast cancer in Germany.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2009
    Guideline
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. What is the point: will screening mammography save my life?BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2009
    Trial
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Observational

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

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

P C GøtzscheThe Nordic Cochrane Centre, Rigshospitalet, Dept. 7112, Blegdamsvej 9, Copenhagen Ø 2100 Denmark. pcg@cochrane.dk
M Nielsen
Cochrane · DKRigshospitalet · DK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA variety of estimates of the benefits and harms of mammographic screening for breast cancer have been published and national policies vary.

objectivesTo assess the effect of screening for breast cancer with mammography on mortality and morbidity. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched PubMed (June 2005). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials comparing mammographic screening with no mammographic screening. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Both authors independently extracted data. Study authors were contacted for additional information. MAIN

resultsSeven completed and eligible trials involving half a million women were identified. We excluded a biased trial from analysis. Two trials with adequate randomisation did not show a significant reduction in breast cancer mortality, relative risk (RR) 0.93 (95% confidence interval 0.80 to 1.09) at 13 years; four trials with suboptimal randomisation showed a significant reduction in breast cancer mortality, RR 0.75 (0.67 to 0.83) (P = 0.02 for difference between the two estimates). RR for all six trials combined was 0.80 (0.73 to 0.88). The two trials with adequate randomisation did not find an effect of screening on cancer mortality, including breast cancer, RR 1.02 (0.95 to 1.10) after 10 years, or on all-cause mortality, RR 1.00 (0.96 to 1.04) after 13 years. We found that breast cancer mortality was an unreliable outcome that was biased in favour of screening, mainly because of differential misclassification of cause of death. Numbers of lumpectomies and mastectomies were significantly larger in the screened groups, RR 1.31 (1.22 to 1.42) for the two adequately randomised trials; the use of radiotherapy was similarly increased. AUTHORS'

conclusionsScreening likely reduces breast cancer mortality. Based on all trials, the reduction is 20%, but as the effect is lower in the highest quality trials, a more reasonable estimate is a 15% relative risk reduction. Based on the risk level of women in these trials, the absolute risk reduction was 0.05%. Screening also leads to overdiagnosis and overtreatment, with an estimated 30% increase, or an absolute risk increase of 0.5%. This means that for every 2000 women invited for screening throughout 10 years, one will have her life prolonged. In addition, 10 healthy women, who would not have been diagnosed if there had not been screening, will be diagnosed as breast cancer patients and will be treated unnecessarily. It is thus not clear whether screening does more good than harm. Women invited to screening should be fully informed of both benefits and harms.

Indexed as

MammographyBreast NeoplasmsCause of DeathFemaleHumansMass ScreeningRandomized Controlled Trials as Topic

Identifiers

PMID17054145
OpenAlexW4241473608

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.