SynthesisLancet (London, England)2012
The benefits and harms of breast cancer screening: an independent review.
Synthesis in Lancet (London, England), 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04767659 (Optical Monitoring of Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy and Prediction of Pathological Complete Response in Breast Cancer Patients), which is not on this map. Cited by 561 papers, 9 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.
Optical Monitoring of Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy and Prediction of Pathological Complete Response in Breast Cancer Patients
Who cites it
561 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 1,473 citations in OpenAlex.
- Italian guidelines for the use of digital breast tomosynthesis in breast cancer screening programmes: GRADE-ADOLOPMENT of the European guidelines.La Radiologia medica · 2026Guideline
- Operationalizing and Measuring Informed Choice in Health Care: An Umbrella Review.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2026Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Shared decision-making for supporting women's decisions about breast cancer screening.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024Pooled it
- Aspects to consider regarding breast cancer risk in trans men: A systematic review and risk management approach.PloS one · 2024Pooled it
- Pooled it
- The influence of postscreening follow-up time and participant characteristics on estimates of overdiagnosis from lung cancer screening trials.International journal of cancer · 2022Pooled it
- A Quantitative Framework to Study Potential Benefits and Harms of Multi-Cancer Early Detection Testing.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2022Pooled it
- Has tumor doubling time in breast cancer changed over the past 80 years? A systematic review.Cancer medicine · 2021Pooled it
- Effect of invitation letter in language of origin on screening attendance: randomised controlled trial in BreastScreen Norway.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2023Trial
- Informing Women About Overdetection in Breast Cancer Screening: Two-Year Outcomes From a Randomized Trial.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2021Trial
- A deep learning model integrating mammography and clinical factors facilitates the malignancy prediction of BI-RADS 4 microcalcifications in breast cancer screening.European radiology · 2021Trial
- Effect of an information leaflet on breast cancer screening participation: A cluster randomized controlled trial.BMC public health · 2021Trial
- Article
- Global breast cancer survival estimates in 2017-2021 to advance the WHO Global Breast Cancer Initiative.Nature medicine · 2026Article
- European Cancer Prevention Organization on cancer screening: an expert panel position paper.European journal of cancer prevention : the official journal of the European Cancer Prevention Organisation (ECP) · 2026Article
- Public (un)willingness to trade-off benefits and harms in decisions about cancer screening: A discrete choice experiment.Journal of medical screening · 2026Article
- Socioeconomic and Urban-Rural Disparities in Mammographic Tumor Burden at Breast Cancer Diagnosis: A Regional Screening Study from Eastern Romania.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- EBCC-15 manifesto: Removing age-related barriers to improve equity in breast cancer care.Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland) · 2026Review
- Economic evaluation of artificial intelligence for cancer detection in the UK breast screening programme.British journal of cancer · 2026Article
501 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Whether breast cancer screening does more harm than good has been debated extensively. The main questions are how large the benefit of screening is in terms of reduced breast cancer mortality and how substantial the harm is in terms of overdiagnosis, which is defined as cancers detected at screening that would not have otherwise become clinically apparent in the woman's lifetime. An independent Panel was convened to reach conclusions about the benefits and harms of breast screening on the basis of a review of published work and oral and written evidence presented by experts in the subject. To provide estimates of the level of benefits and harms, the Panel relied mainly on findings from randomised trials of breast cancer screening that compared women invited to screening with controls not invited, but also reviewed evidence from observational studies. The Panel focused on the UK setting, where women aged 50-70 years are invited to screening every 3 years. In this Review, we provide a summary of the full report on the Panel's findings and conclusions. In a meta-analysis of 11 randomised trials, the relative risk of breast cancer mortality for women invited to screening compared with controls was 0·80 (95% CI 0·73-0·89), which is a relative risk reduction of 20%. The Panel considered the internal biases in the trials and whether these trials, which were done a long time ago, were still relevant; they concluded that 20% was still a reasonable estimate of the relative risk reduction. The more reliable and recent observational studies generally produced larger estimates of benefit, but these studies might be biased. The best estimates of overdiagnosis are from three trials in which women in the control group were not invited to be screened at the end of the active trial period. In a meta-analysis, estimates of the excess incidence were 11% (95% CI 9-12) when expressed as a proportion of cancers diagnosed in the invited group in the long term, and 19% (15-23) when expressed as a proportion of the cancers diagnosed during the active screening period. Results from observational studies support the occurrence of overdiagnosis, but estimates of its magnitude are unreliable. The Panel concludes that screening reduces breast cancer mortality but that some overdiagnosis occurs. Since the estimates provided are from studies with many limitations and whose relevance to present-day screening programmes can be questioned, they have substantial uncertainty and should be regarded only as an approximate guide. If these figures are used directly, for every 10,000 UK women aged 50 years invited to screening for the next 20 years, 43 deaths from breast cancer would be prevented and 129 cases of breast cancer, invasive and non-invasive, would be overdiagnosed; that is one breast cancer death prevented for about every three overdiagnosed cases identified and treated. Of the roughly 307,000 women aged 50-52 years who are invited to begin screening every year, just over 1% would have an overdiagnosed cancer in the next 20 years. Evidence from a focus group organised by Cancer Research UK and attended by some members of the Panel showed that many women feel that accepting the offer of breast screening is worthwhile, which agrees with the results of previous similar studies. Information should be made available in a transparent and objective way to women invited to screening so that they can make informed decisions.
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.