Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20032143›Full record

ArticleRadiology2010

Reasons women at elevated risk of breast cancer refuse breast MR imaging screening: ACRIN 6666.

Wendie A Berg, Jeffrey D Blume, Amanda M Adams, Roberta A Jong, Richard G Barr, Daniel E Lehrer, Etta D Pisano, W Phil Evans, Mary C Mahoney, Linda Hovanessian Larsen and 2 more

Registry-linked trialAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Radiology, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT00072501 (Screening Breast Ultrasound in High-Risk Women), which is not on this map. Cited by 75 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
75citing papers in PubMed, 2 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.

NCT00072501 nacompletednot on this map

Screening Breast Ultrasound in High-Risk Women

TypeinterventionalSponsorAmerican College of Radiology Imaging NetworkRan2004ConditionsBreast CancerArmsbreast imaging study, comparison of screening methods, magnetic resonance imaging, radiomammography, ultrasound imaging
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

75 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

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

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Wendie A BergAmerican Radiology Services, Johns Hopkins Green Spring, 10755 Falls Rd, Suite 440, Lutherville, MD 21093, USA. wendieberg@gmail.com
Jeffrey D Blume
Amanda M Adams
Roberta A Jong
Richard G Barr
Daniel E Lehrer
Etta D Pisano
W Phil Evans
Mary C Mahoney
Linda Hovanessian Larsen
Glenna J Gabrielli
Ellen B Mendelson

Funding

BIOSTATISTICS DATA MANAGEMENT CENTER FOR ACROINU01CA079778 · NCI · BROWN UNIVERSITY · PI GATSONIS, CONSTANTINE A. · 1999 to 2011
$48.6M
NCI NIH HHS U01 CA079778NCI NIH HHS U01 CA89008
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo determine reasons for nonparticipation in a trial of supplemental screening with magnetic resonance (MR) imaging after mammography and ultrasonography (US). MATERIALS AND

methodsWomen(n = 2809) at elevated risk of breast cancer were enrolled in the American College of Radiology Imaging Network 6666 US Screening Protocol at 21 institutions. Fourteen institutions met technical and experience requirements for this institutional review board-approved, HIPAA-compliant substudy of supplemental screening with MR imaging. Those women who had completed 0-, 12-, and 24-month screenings with mammography combined with US were considered for a single contrast material-enhanced MR examination within 8 weeks after completing the 24-month mammography-US screening. A total of 1593 women had complete MR substudy registration data: 378 of them were ineligible for the study, and 1215 had analyzable data. Reasons for nonparticipation were determined. Demographic data were compared between study participants and nonparticipants.

resultsOf 1215 women with analyzable data, 703 (57.9%), with a mean age of 54.8 years, were enrolled in the MR substudy and 512 (42.1%) declined participation. Women with a 25% or greater lifetime risk of breast cancer were more likely to participate (odds ratio, 1.53; 95% confidence interval: 1.10, 2.12). Of 512 nonparticipants, 130 (25.4%) refused owing to claustrophobia; 93 (18.2%), owing to time constraints; 62 (12.1%), owing to financial concerns; 47 (9.2%), because their physician would not provide a referral and/or did not believe MR imaging was indicated; 40 (7.8%), because they were not interested; 39 (7.6%), because they were medically intolerant to MR imaging; 29 (5.7%), because they did not want to undergo intravenous injection; 27 (5.3%), owing to additional biopsy or other procedures that might be required subsequently; 21 (4.1%), owing to MR imaging scheduling constraints; 11 (2.2%), because of the travel required; seven (1.4%), owing to gadolinium-related risks or allergies; and six (1.2%), for unknown reasons.

conclusionOf 1215 women with elevated breast cancer risk who could, according to protocol guidelines, undergo breast MR imaging, only 57.9% agreed to participate.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsContrast MediaFemaleHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMammographyMass ScreeningMiddle AgedRisk FactorsTreatment RefusalUltrasonography, MammaryUnited StatesWomenContrast Media

Identifiers

PMID20032143
PMCPMC2811274

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.