Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23117178›Full record

SynthesisLancet (London, England)2012

The benefits and harms of breast cancer screening: an independent review.

Independent UK Panel on Breast Cancer Screening

Registry-linked trialOpen access · bronzeAbstract readMeta-AnalysisReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
561citing papers in PubMed, 9 pooled it
64.3field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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.

NCT04767659 narecruitingnot on this mapstarted 2020, after this paper: background citation

Optical Monitoring of Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy and Prediction of Pathological Complete Response in Breast Cancer Patients

TypeinterventionalSponsorIRCCS San RaffaeleRan2020 to 2025Enrolled20ConditionsBreast Cancer Female, Chemotherapy EffectArmsMAMMOT2
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

561 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 1,473 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Operationalizing and Measuring Informed Choice in Health Care: An Umbrella Review.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2026
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. 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 · 2022
    Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. 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) · 2026
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

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

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Independent UK Panel on Breast Cancer Screening
UCL Australia · AU

Funding

British Heart Foundation RG/07/008/23674British Heart Foundation RG/08/014/24067Department of HealthMedical Research Council G0100222Medical Research Council G0902037Medical Research Council G1000616Medical Research Council G19/35Medical Research Council G8802774
6 · The paper itself

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

AdultAgedBreast NeoplasmsCarcinoma, Intraductal, NoninfiltratingEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansMass ScreeningMiddle AgedRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicUnited Kingdom

Identifiers

PMID23117178
OpenAlexW250128136

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.