Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22054804›Full record

ArticleAcademic radiology2012

Breast cancer risk assessment in 64,659 women at a single high-volume mammography clinic.

John T Brinton, Lora D Barke, Mary E Freivogel, Stacy Jackson, Colin I O'Donnell, Deborah H Glueck

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Academic radiology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 18% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 27 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Observational
  11. 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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.

John T BrintonDepartment of Biostatistics and Informatics, Colorado School of Public Health, University of Colorado Denver, 13001 E. 17th Place, Room W3125, Aurora, CO, USA. john.brinton@ucdenver.edu
Lora D Barke
Mary E Freivogel
Stacy Jackson
Colin I O'Donnell
Deborah H Glueck
Invision Sally Jobe · USUniversity of Colorado Denver · USColorado School of Public Health · US

Funding

Power and Sample Size Methods for Mammography TrialsK07CA088811 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO DENVER · PI GLUECK, DEBORAH HELEN · 2002 to 2009
$734k
NCI NIH HHS K07 CA088811NCI NIH HHS K07CA88811
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

RATIONALE AND

objectivesIn 2007, the American Cancer Society (ACS) recommended that women at elevated risk of breast cancer be screened with breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) as an adjunct to mammography. This study estimates the proportion of women presenting for screening mammography who are at elevated lifetime risk of breast cancer as determined by the Gail model. This study provides preliminary information for a proposed follow-up study, including the proportion of women who completed the recommended MRI at the same clinic that had conducted the risk assessment. MATERIALS AND

methodsThis study is an observational prospective cohort of 64,659 women presenting for mammographic screening at a single high-volume clinic. If a woman reported a first-degree maternal relative with breast cancer and had at least 20% lifetime risk on the Gail model, the radiologist's report included a recommendation that the primary care physician refer the woman for breast MRI screening. Records were examined to determine if women completed the recommended MRI at the clinic within one year of the initial risk assessment.

resultsOf 64,659 women, 1,246 (1.9%) had a lifetime risk of breast cancer of 20% or greater, and 436 (0.7 %) had a lifetime risk of breast cancer 25% or greater. Of the women at elevated risk, 173 (13.9%) completed the recommended breast MRI screening at the clinic within a year.

conclusionThe effectiveness of matching screening intensity to risk on cancer detection, biopsy rate, and cost should be evaluated by studying multiple clinics and multiple risk assessment tools.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overBreast NeoplasmsColoradoFemaleHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMammographyMass ScreeningMiddle AgedPrevalenceReproducibility of ResultsRisk AssessmentRisk FactorsSensitivity and Specificity

Identifiers

PMID22054804
PMCPMC3261722
OpenAlexW2064912188

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.