Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22204661›Full record

ArticleBreast cancer research : BCR2011

Long-term prognosis of breast cancer detected by mammography screening or other methods.

Tiina Lehtimäki, Mikael Lundin, Nina Linder, Harri Sihto, Kaija Holli, Taina Turpeenniemi-Hujanen, Vesa Kataja, Jorma Isola, Heikki Joensuu, Johan Lundin

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Breast cancer research : BCR, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 19% 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

31 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 76 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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

10 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.

Tiina LehtimäkiInstitute for Molecular Medicine Finland (FIMM), University of Helsinki, Biomedicum Helsinki 2U, Tukholmankatu 8, PO Box 20, FI-00014 Helsinki, Finland. tiina.lehtimaki@helsinki.fi
Mikael Lundin
Nina Linder
Harri Sihto
Kaija Holli
Taina Turpeenniemi-Hujanen
Vesa Kataja
Jorma Isola
Heikki Joensuu
Johan Lundin
Institute for Molecular Medicine Finland · FITampere University Hospital · FIUniversity of Helsinki · FIKarolinska Institutet · SEKuopio University Hospital · FIOulu University Hospital · FI

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionPrevious studies of breast cancer have shown that patients whose tumors are detected by mammography screening have a more favorable survival. Little is known, however, about the long-term prognostic impact of screen detection. The purpose of the current study was to compare breast cancer-specific long-term survival of patients whose tumors were detected in mammography screening compared with those whose tumors were detected by other methods.

methodsBreast cancer patients diagnosed within five specified geographical areas in Finland in 1991 and 1992 were identified (N = 2,936). Detailed clinical, treatment and outcome data, as well as tissue samples, were collected. Women with in situ carcinoma, distant metastases at the time of primary diagnosis and women who were not treated surgically were excluded. The main analyses were performed after excluding patients with other malignancy or contralateral breast cancer, followed by sensitivity analyses with different exclusion criteria. Median follow-up time was 15.4 years. Univariate and multivariate analyses of breast cancer-specific survival were performed.

resultsOf patients included in the main analyses (n = 1,884), 22% (n = 408) of cancers were screen-detected and 78% (n = 1,476) were detected by other methods. Breast cancer-specific 15-year survival was 86% for patients with screen-detected cancer and 66% for patients diagnosed using other methods (P < 0.0001, HR = 2.91). Similar differences in survival were observed in women at screening age (50 to 69 years), as well as in clinically important subgroups, such as patients with small tumors (≤ 1 cm in diameter) and without nodal involvement (N0). Women with breast cancer diagnosed on the basis of screening mammography had a more favorable prognosis than those diagnosed outside screening programs, following adjustments according to patient age, tumor size, axillary lymph node status, histological grade and hormone receptor status. Significant differences in the risk of having future contralateral breast cancer according to method of detection were not observed.

conclusionsBreast cancer detected by mammography screening is an independent prognostic factor in breast cancer and is associated with a more favorable survival rate as well as in long-term follow-up.

Indexed as

MammographyAgedAge FactorsBreast NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansLymph NodesMiddle AgedPrognosisSurvival Analysis

Identifiers

PMID22204661
PMCPMC3326576
OpenAlexW2171169875

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.