ArticleRadiation research2010
Breast cancer risk from different mammography screening practices.
Article in Radiation research, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- XGBoost Enhances the Performance of SAFE: A Novel Microwave Imaging System for Early Detection of Malignant Breast Cancer.Cancers · 2025Article
- Adverse outcome pathways for ionizing radiation and breast cancer involve direct and indirect DNA damage, oxidative stress, inflammation, genomic instability, and interaction with hormonal regulation of the breast.Archives of toxicology · 2020Review
- Retrospective observation on contribution and limitations of screening for breast cancer with mammography in Korea: detection rate of breast cancer and incidence rate of interval cancer of the breast.BMC women's health · 2016Article
- Breast cancer risk in atomic bomb survivors from multi-model inference with incidence data 1958-1998.Radiation and environmental biophysics · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Mammography screening is an accepted procedure for early detection of breast tumors among asymptomatic women. Since this procedure involves the use of X rays, it is itself potentially carcinogenic. Although there is general consensus about the benefit of screening for older women, screening practices differ between countries. In this paper radiation risks for these different practices are estimated using a new approach. We model breast cancer induction by ionizing radiation in a cohort of patients exposed to frequent X-ray examinations. The biologically based, mechanistic model provides a better foundation for the extrapolation of risks to different mammography screening practices than empirical models do. The model predicts that the excess relative risk (ERR) doubles when screening starts at age 40 instead of 50 and that a continuation of screening at ages 75 and higher carries little extra risk. The number of induced fatal breast cancers is estimated to be considerably lower than derived from epidemiological studies and from internationally accepted radiation protection risks. The present findings, if used in a risk-benefit analysis for mammography screening, would be more favorable to screening than estimates currently recommended for radiation protection. This has implications for the screening ages that are currently being reconsidered in several countries.
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.