Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18664650›Full record

ArticleJournal of the National Cancer Institute2008

Comparing screening mammography for early breast cancer detection in Vermont and Norway.

Solveig Hofvind, Pamela M Vacek, Joan Skelly, Donald L Weaver, Berta M Geller

Open access · bronzeAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 41 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
41citing papers in PubMed
3.4field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

41 citing papers in PubMed, 98 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. The potential of breast cancer screening in Europe.International journal of cancer · 2021
    Article
  11. Article
  12. The Future Is Prosperous.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2020
    Article
  13. Recommendations to improve patient-centred care for ductal carcinoma in situ: Qualitative focus groups with women.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2020
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Solveig HofvindDepartment of Screening-Based Research, The Cancer Registry of Norway, Oslo, Norway.
Pamela M Vacek
Joan Skelly
Donald L Weaver
Berta M Geller
University of Vermont · USCancer Registry of Norway · NO

Funding

VERMONT BREAST CANCER SURVEILLANCE SYSTEMU01CA070013 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT &ST AGRIC COLLEGE · PI GELLER, BERTA M · 1995 to 2011
$6.7M
NCI NIH HHS U01 CA070013
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMost screening mammography in the United States differs from that in countries with formal screening programs by having a shorter screening interval and interpretation by a single reader vs independent double reading. We examined how these differences affect early detection of breast cancer by comparing performance measures and histopathologic outcomes in women undergoing opportunistic screening in Vermont and organized screening in Norway.

methodsWe evaluated recall, screen detection, and interval cancer rates and prognostic tumor characteristics for women aged 50-69 years who underwent screening mammography in Vermont (n = 45 050) and in Norway (n = 194 430) from 1997 through 2003. Rates were directly adjusted for age by weighting the rates within 5-year age intervals to reflect the age distribution in the combined data and were compared using two-sided Z tests.

resultsThe age-adjusted recall rate was 9.8% in Vermont and 2.7% in Norway (P < .001). The age-adjusted screen detection rate per 1000 woman-years after 2 years of follow-up was 2.77 in Vermont and 2.57 in Norway (P = .12), whereas the interval cancer rate per 1000 woman-years was 1.24 and 0.86, respectively (P < .001). Larger proportions of invasive interval cancers in Vermont than in Norway were 15 mm or smaller (55.9% vs 38.2%, P < .001) and had no lymph node involvement (67.5% vs 57%, P = .01). The prognostic characteristics of all invasive cancers (screen-detected and interval cancer) were similar in Vermont and Norway.

conclusionScreening mammography detected cancer at about the same rate and at the same prognostic stage in Norway and Vermont, with a statistically significantly lower recall rate in Norway. The interval cancer rate was higher in Vermont than in Norway, but tumors that were diagnosed in the Vermont women tended to be at an earlier stage than those diagnosed in the Norwegian women.

Indexed as

AdultAgedBreast NeoplasmsCarcinoma, Ductal, BreastEarly DiagnosisEducational StatusFemaleHumansMammographyMass ScreeningMiddle AgedNeoplasm StagingNorwayObserver VariationPrognosisVermont

Identifiers

PMID18664650
PMCPMC2720695
OpenAlexW2170152244

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.