Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20726723›Full record

ArticleRadiation research2010

Breast cancer risk from different mammography screening practices.

Harmen Bijwaard, Alina Brenner, Fieke Dekkers, Teun van Dillen, Charles E Land, John D Boice

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–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.

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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. 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

6 authors.

Harmen BijwaardLaboratory for Radiation Research, RIVM-National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Bilthoven, The Netherlands.
Alina Brenner
Fieke Dekkers
Teun van Dillen
Charles E Land
John D Boice

Funding

Studies of Populations Exposed to Therapeutic Medical Radiation and Other AgentsZIACP010131 · NCI · DIVISION OF CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY AND GENETICS · PI MORTON, LINDSAY · 2009 to 2025
$81.0M
Intramural NIH HHS ZIA CP010131
6 · The paper itself

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

AdultAgedBreast NeoplasmsFemaleHumansMammographyMiddle AgedNeoplasms, Radiation-InducedRisk

Identifiers

PMID20726723
PMCPMC6276803

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.