ArticleCancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology2012
Screening mammography use among current, former, and never hormone therapy users may not explain recent declines in breast cancer incidence.
Article in Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Long-term Accuracy of Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Combining Classic Risk Factors and Breast Density.JAMA oncology · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundScreening mammography and invasive breast cancer and ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) rates recently declined in the United States; screening mammography declines among former hormone therapy (HT) users may be an important contributor. We longitudinally examined women and compared mammography use and cancer rates by HT use [current, former, and never users of estrogen + progestin (EPT) and estrogen only (ET)].
methodsWe studied 163,490 unique women aged 50-79 years enrolled in Group Health (Washington State) between 1994-2009. Electronic data identified HT dispensing, mammography use and incident breast cancer diagnosis. We calculated age-adjusted screening compliance as a time-varying variable (screened-within-the-past-26 months, yes/no).
resultsBefore 2002, screening compliance differed significantly by HT with current EPT users having the highest rates (83%) followed by former EPT (77%), current ET (77%), former ET (72%), and never users (56%). After 2002, screening was high (∼81%) among current and former EPT and ET users and significantly increased among never users (∼62%). Invasive breast cancer rates significantly decreased over the whole study period (P(trend) ≤ 0.05) for all HT users, except EPT current users (P(trend) = 0.68); DCIS rates did not change in any group.
conclusionsDifferential screening mammography rates by HT use do not explain invasive breast cancer incidence declines. Our data suggest discontinuing HT has an immediate effect on breast cancer rates, lending support to the mechanism that cessation leads to tumor regression. IMPACT: Studies examining the influence of a changing exposure in relation to outcomes should account for varying exposures, individuals' characteristics, as well as screening methods and frequency.
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.