ArticleCancer2013
Mammographic screening interval in relation to tumor characteristics and false-positive risk by race/ethnicity and age.
Article in Cancer, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 20 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
- Screening for Breast Cancer: A Comparative Review of Guidelines.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Cumulative Advanced Breast Cancer Risk Prediction Model Developed in a Screening Mammography Population.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2022Article
- Cumulative Probability of False-Positive Results After 10 Years of Screening With Digital Breast Tomosynthesis vs Digital Mammography.JAMA network open · 2022Observational
- Is the false-positive rate in mammography in North America too high?The British journal of radiology · 2016Review
- Factors Associated With Rates of False-Positive and False-Negative Results From Digital Mammography Screening: An Analysis of Registry Data.Annals of internal medicine · 2016Article
- Breast Tumor Prognostic Characteristics and Biennial vs Annual Mammography, Age, and Menopausal Status.JAMA oncology · 2015Article
- Racial differences in false-positive mammogram rates: results from the ACRIN Digital Mammographic Imaging Screening Trial (DMIST).Medical care · 2015Article
- Comparison of cumulative false-positive risk of screening mammography in the United States and Denmark.Cancer epidemiology · 2015Article
- Is mammography screening history a predictor of future breast cancer risk?European journal of epidemiology · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundBiennial screening mammography retains most of the benefits of annual breast cancer screening with reduced harms. Whether screening guidelines based on race/ethnicity and age would be more effective than age-based guidelines is unknown.
methodsMammography data from the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium were linked to pathology and tumor databases. The authors identified women aged 40 to 74 years who underwent annual, biennial, or triennial screening mammography between 1994 and 2008. Logistic regression was used to estimate adjusted odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) of adverse tumor characteristics among 14,396 incident breast cancer cases and 10-year cumulative risks of false-positive recall and biopsy recommendation among 1,276,312 noncases.
resultsNo increased risk of adverse tumor characteristics associated with biennial versus annual screening were noted in white women, black women, Hispanic women aged 40 to 49 years, or Asian women aged 50 to 74 years. Hispanic women aged 50 to 74 years who screened biennially versus annually were found to have an increased risk of late-stage disease (OR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.0-2.5) and large tumors (OR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.1-2.4). Asian women aged 40 to 49 years who underwent biennial screening had an elevated risk of positive lymph nodes (OR, 3.1; 95% CI, 1.3-7.1). No elevated risks were associated with triennial versus biennial screening. Cumulative false-positive risks decreased markedly with a longer screening interval.
conclusionsThe authors found limited evidence of elevated risks of adverse tumor characteristics with biennial versus annual screening, whereas cumulative false-positive risks were lower. However, elevated risks of late-stage disease in Hispanic women and lymph node-positive disease in younger Asian women who screened less often than annually warrant consideration and replication.
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.