Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22696156›Full record

ArticleEuropean radiology2012

Characteristics and screening outcome of women referred twice at screening mammography.

Wikke Setz-Pels, Lucien E M Duijm, Marieke W J Louwman, Rudi M H Roumen, Frits H Jansen, Adri C Voogd

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European radiology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

6 authors.

Wikke Setz-PelsDepartment of Radiology, Catharina Hospital, PO Box 1350, 5602 ZA, Eindhoven, The Netherlands. w.setzpels@gmail.com
Lucien E M Duijm
Marieke W J Louwman
Rudi M H Roumen
Frits H Jansen
Adri C Voogd

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo determine the characteristics and screening outcome of women referred twice at screening mammography.

methodsWe included 424,703 consecutive screening mammograms and collected imaging, biopsy and surgery reports of women with screen-detected breast cancer. Review of screening mammograms was performed to determine whether or not an initial and second referral comprised the same lesion.

resultsThe overall positive predictive value of referral for cancer was 38.6% (95% CI 37.3-39.8%). Of 147 (2.6%) women referred twice, 86 had been referred for a different lesion at second referral and 32 of these proved malignant (37.2%, 95% CI 27.0-47.4%). Sixty-one women had been referred twice for the same lesion, of which 22 proved malignant (36.1%, 95% CI 24.1-48.0%). Characteristics of these women were comparable to women with cancer diagnosed after first referral. Compared with women without cancer at second referral for the same lesion, women with cancer more frequently showed suspicious densities at screening mammography (86.4% vs 53.8%, P = 0.02) and work-up at first referral had less frequently included biopsy (22.7% vs 61.5%, P = 0.004).

conclusionsCancer risk in women referred twice for the same lesion is similar to that observed in women referred once, or referred for a second time but for a different lesion. KEY POINTS: Cancer risk was 36% for lesions referred twice at screening mammography. The cancer risk was similar for lesions referred only once at screening. Densities at first referral were associated with increased cancer risk at second referral. No biopsy at first referral was associated with increased cancer risk at second referral. Patient and tumour characteristics were similar for women with and without diagnostic delay.

Indexed as

MammographyReferral and ConsultationAgedBiopsyBreast NeoplasmsChi-Square DistributionEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansMass ScreeningMiddle AgedNetherlandsPredictive Value of TestsRiskTime 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.