Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22473436›Full record

ArticleAnnals of internal medicine2012

Overdiagnosis of invasive breast cancer due to mammography screening: results from the Norwegian screening program.

Mette Kalager, Hans-Olov Adami, Michael Bretthauer, Rulla M Tamimi

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of internal medicine, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 86 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
86citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–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

86 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Screening for breast cancer with mammography.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2013
    Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Cancer overdiagnosis: a challenge in the era of screening.Journal of the National Cancer Center · 2022
    Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. An exploration for quantification of overdiagnosis and its effect for breast cancer screening.Chinese journal of cancer research = Chung-kuo yen cheng yen chiu · 2020
    Article
  20. Article

26 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Mette KalagerHarvard School of Public Health, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. mkalager@hsph.harvard.edu
Hans-Olov Adami
Michael Bretthauer
Rulla M Tamimi

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPrecise quantification of overdiagnosis of breast cancer (defined as the percentage of cases of cancer that would not have become clinically apparent in a woman's lifetime without screening) due to mammography screening has been hampered by lack of valid comparison groups that identify incidence trends attributable to screening versus those due to temporal trends in incidence.

objectiveTo estimate the percentage of overdiagnosis of breast cancer attributable to mammography screening.

designComparison of invasive breast cancer incidence with and without screening.

settingA nationwide mammography screening program in Norway (inviting women aged 50 to 69 years), gradually implemented from 1996 to 2005.

participantsThe Norwegian female population. MEASUREMENTS: Concomitant incidence of invasive breast cancer from 1996 to 2005 in counties where the screening program was implemented compared with that in counties where the program was not yet implemented. To adjust for changes in temporal trends in breast cancer incidence, incidence rates during the preceding decade were also examined. The percentage of overdiagnosis was calculated by accounting for the expected decrease in incidence following cessation of screening after age 69 years (approach 1) and by comparing incidence in the current screening group with incidence among women 2 and 5 years older in the historical screening groups, accounting for average lead time (approach 2).

resultsA total of 39,888 patients with invasive breast cancer were included, 7793 of whom were diagnosed after the screening program started. The estimated rate of overdiagnosis attributable to the program was 18% to 25% (P < 0.001) for approach 1 and 15% to 20% (P < 0.001) for approach 2. Thus, 15% to 25% of cases of cancer are overdiagnosed, translating to 6 to 10 women overdiagnosed for every 2500 women invited. LIMITATION: The study was registry-based.

conclusionMammography screening entails a substantial amount of overdiagnosis. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Norwegian Research Council and Frontier Science.

Indexed as

AgedBreast NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansIncidenceMammographyMass ScreeningMiddle AgedNorwayRegistriesTime Factors

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.