Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22547470›Full record

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.

Nicolien T van Ravesteyn, Diana L Miglioretti, Natasha K Stout, Sandra J Lee, Clyde B Schechter, Diana S M Buist, Hui Huang, Eveline A M Heijnsdijk, Amy Trentham-Dietz, Oguzhan Alagoz and 5 more

Abstract read
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 54 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
54citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 29% 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

54 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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 · 2018
    Article
  20. 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 · 2018
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Nicolien T van RavesteynErasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. n.vanravesteyn@erasmusmc.nl
Diana L Miglioretti
Natasha K Stout
Sandra J Lee
Clyde B Schechter
Diana S M Buist
Hui Huang
Eveline A M Heijnsdijk
Amy Trentham-Dietz
Oguzhan Alagoz
Aimee M Near
Karla Kerlikowske
Heidi D Nelson
Jeanne S Mandelblatt
Harry J de Koning
Erasmus University Rotterdam · NL

Funding

Risk-based Imaging Strategies to Improve Breast Cancer Surveillance OutcomesP01CA154292 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT DAVIS · PI Diana L Miglioretti · 2011 to 2026
$52.9M
Statistical Coordinating Center for the Breast Cancer Surveillance ConsortiumU01CA086076 · NCI · KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN OF WASHINGTON · PI MIGLIORETTI, DIANA L · 2000 to 2011
$8.5M
Comparative Modeling: Informing Breast Cancer Control Practice & PolicyU01CA152958 · NCI · GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY · PI BERRY, DONALD A, DE KONING, HARRY J · 2010 to 2015
$7.6M
IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF MAMMOGRAPHIC INTERPRETATIONU01CA063731 · NCI · KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN OF WASHINGTON · PI BUIST, DIANA SM · 1994 to 2011
$6.7M
VERMONT BREAST CANCER SURVEILLANCE SYSTEMU01CA070013 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT &ST AGRIC COLLEGE · PI GELLER, BERTA M · 1995 to 2011
$6.7M
UTILITY AND OUTCOMES FROM MAMMOGRAPHY IN NORTH CAROLINAU01CA070040 · NCI · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI YANKASKAS, BONNIE C · 1995 to 2011
$6.4M
San Francisco Mammography Registry-A Research SourceU01CA063740 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI KERLIKOWSKE, KARLA M · 1994 to 2011
$6.2M
STRATEGIC STUDIES IN BREAST CANCER SURVEILLANCEU01CA086082 · NCI · DARTMOUTH COLLEGE · PI ONEGA, TRACY · 2000 to 2011
$4.9M
REFERRAL PATTERNS AND COST ANALYSIS OF SCREENING MAMMOGRAPHY--FOLLOW-UP/BIOPSYU01CA063736 · NCI · COOPER INSTITUTE · PI CUTTER, GARY · 1994 to 2004
$2.7M
NEW MEXICO MAMMOGRAPHY PROJECTU01CA069976 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO · PI ROSENBERG, ROBERT D · 1995 to 2005
$2.7M
OUTCOMES ACROSS THE SPECTRUM OF BREAST CANCER CAREU01CA088283 · NCI · GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY · PI MANDELBLATT, JEANNE · 2000 to 2010
$2.6M
Cancer Control at the Intersection of Aging ResearchK05CA096940 · NCI · GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY · PI MANDELBLATT, JEANNE · 2002 to 2011
$1.5M
NCI NIH HHS K05 CA096940NCI NIH HHS KO5CA96940NCI NIH HHS P01 CA154292NCI NIH HHS U01 CA063731NCI NIH HHS U01 CA063736NCI NIH HHS U01 CA063740NCI NIH HHS U01 CA069976NCI NIH HHS U01 CA070013NCI NIH HHS U01 CA070040NCI NIH HHS U01 CA086076NCI NIH HHS U01CA086076-10S1NCI NIH HHS U01 CA086082NCI NIH HHS U01 CA088283NCI NIH HHS U01 CA152958NCI NIH HHS U01CA152958NCI NIH HHS U01CA63731NCI NIH HHS U01CA63736NCI NIH HHS U01CA63740NCI NIH HHS U01CA69976NCI NIH HHS U01CA70013NCI NIH HHS U01CA70040NCI NIH HHS U01CA86076NCI NIH HHS U01CA86082NCI NIH HHS U01CA88283
6 · The paper itself

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

MammographyAdultAgedBreast NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerFalse Positive ReactionsFemaleHumansMass ScreeningMiddle AgedModels, StatisticalRisk AssessmentSensitivity and SpecificityTime FactorsUnited States

Identifiers

PMID22547470
PMCPMC3520058
OpenAlexW141676468

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.