ArticleAnnals of internal medicine2012
Tipping the balance of benefits and harms to favor screening mammography starting at age 40 years: a comparative modeling study of risk.
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 54 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
54 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Benefits and harms of annual, biennial, or triennial breast cancer mammography screening for women at average risk of breast cancer: a systematic review for the European Commission Initiative on Breast Cancer (ECIBC).British journal of cancer · 2022Pooled it
- Recommendations for breast cancer surveillance for female survivors of childhood, adolescent, and young adult cancer given chest radiation: a report from the International Late Effects of Childhood Cancer Guideline Harmonization Group.The Lancet. Oncology · 2013Guideline
- Risk factors for breast cancer for women aged 40 to 49 years: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Annals of internal medicine · 2012Pooled it
- Advanced Versus Invasive Breast Cancer Risk in a Screening Population: Implications for Risk-based Prevention and Screening Strategies.Journal of general internal medicine · 2026Article
- The breast cancer risk assessment pathway in England: a systems analysis of current challenges and ways to improve.British journal of cancer · 2026Article
- A Systematic Review of the Cost-Effectiveness of Screening Modalities for Breast Cancer in European Countries.Cancers · 2025Review
- Canadian Healthcare Professionals' Views and Attitudes toward Risk-Stratified Breast Cancer Screening.Journal of personalized medicine · 2023Article
- Proactive breast cancer risk assessment in primary care: a review based on the principles of screening.British journal of cancer · 2023Review
- Duration and cost-effectiveness of hepatocellular carcinoma surveillance in hepatitis C patients after viral eradication.Journal of hepatology · 2022Article
- Extending Age Ranges in Breast Cancer Screening in Four European Countries: Model Estimations of Harm-to-Benefit Ratios.Cancers · 2021Article
- Personalizing Breast Cancer Screening Based on Polygenic Risk and Family History.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2021Article
- Machine learning-based lifetime breast cancer risk reclassification compared with the BOADICEA model: impact on screening recommendations.British journal of cancer · 2020Article
- Machine learning techniques for personalized breast cancer risk prediction: comparison with the BCRAT and BOADICEA models.Breast cancer research : BCR · 2019Article
- Why the Gold Standard Approach by Mammography Demands Extension by Multiomics? Application of Liquid Biopsy miRNA Profiles to Breast Cancer Disease Management.International journal of molecular sciences · 2019Review
- Breast Cancer Screening in Primary Care: A Call for Development and Validation of Patient-Oriented Shared Decision-Making Tools.Journal of women's health (2002) · 2019Article
- Health professionals' perspectives on breast cancer risk stratification: understanding evaluation of risk versus screening for disease.Public health reviews · 2019Review
- Preference-Sensitive Management of Post-Mammography Decisions in Breast Cancer Diagnosis.Production and operations management · 2018Article
- Breast Cancer Risk Model Requirements for Counseling, Prevention, and Screening.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2018Article
- Development of a Breast Cancer Risk Prediction Model for Women in Nigeria.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2018Article
- Simulating the Impact of Risk-Based Screening and Treatment on Breast Cancer Outcomes with MISCAN-Fadia.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
15 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTiming of initiation of screening for breast cancer is controversial in the United States.
objectiveTo determine the threshold relative risk (RR) at which the harm-benefit ratio of screening women aged 40 to 49 years equals that of biennial screening for women aged 50 to 74 years.
designComparative modeling study. DATA SOURCES: Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program, Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium, and medical literature. TARGET POPULATION: A contemporary cohort of women eligible for routine screening. TIME HORIZON: Lifetime. PERSPECTIVE: Societal.
interventionMammography screening starting at age 40 versus 50 years with different screening methods (film, digital) and screening intervals (annual, biennial). OUTCOME MEASURES: BENEFITS: life-years gained, breast cancer deaths averted; harms: false-positive mammography findings; harm-benefit ratios: false-positive findings/life-years gained, false-positive findings/deaths averted. RESULTS OF BASE-CASE ANALYSIS: Screening average-risk women aged 50 to 74 years biennially yields the same false-positive findings/life-years gained as biennial screening with digital mammography starting at age 40 years for women with a 2-fold increased risk above average (median threshold RR, 1.9 [range across models, 1.5 to 4.4]). The threshold RRs are higher for annual screening with digital mammography (median, 4.3 [range, 3.3 to 10]) and when false-positive findings/deaths averted is used as an outcome measure instead of false-positive findings/life-years gained. The harm-benefit ratio for film mammography is more favorable than for digital mammography because film has a lower false-positive rate. RESULTS OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS: The threshold RRs changed slightly when a more comprehensive measure of harm was used and were relatively insensitive to lower adherence assumptions. LIMITATION: Risk was assumed to influence onset of disease without influencing screening performance.
conclusionWomen aged 40 to 49 years with a 2-fold increased risk have similar harm-benefit ratios for biennial screening mammography as average-risk women aged 50 to 74 years. Threshold RRs required for favorable harm-benefit ratios vary by screening method, interval, and outcome measure. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Cancer Institute.
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.