ArticlePloS one2013
Trends in detection of invasive cancer and ductal carcinoma in situ at biennial screening mammography in Spain: a retrospective cohort study.
Article in PloS one, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Invasive breast cancer and breast cancer mortality after ductal carcinoma in situ in women attending for breast screening in England, 1988-2014: population based observational cohort study.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2020Observational
- The need for a rapid and comprehensive adoption of the revised European standard population in cancer incidence comparisons.European journal of cancer prevention : the official journal of the European Cancer Prevention Organisation (ECP) · 2017Article
- Cumulative risk of breast cancer screening outcomes according to the presence of previous benign breast disease and family history of breast cancer: supporting personalised screening.British journal of cancer · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 8 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBreast cancer incidence has decreased in the last decade, while the incidence of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) has increased substantially in the western world. The phenomenon has been attributed to the widespread adaption of screening mammography. The aim of the study was to evaluate the temporal trends in the rates of screen detected invasive cancers and DCIS, and to compare the observed trends with respect to hormone replacement therapy (HRT) use along the same study period.
methodsRetrospective cohort study of 1,564,080 women aged 45-69 years who underwent 4,705,681 screening mammograms from 1992 to 2006. Age-adjusted rates of screen detected invasive cancer, DCIS, and HRT use were calculated for first and subsequent screenings. Poisson regression was used to evaluate the existence of a change-point in trend, and to estimate the adjusted trends in screen detected invasive breast cancer and DCIS over the study period.
resultsThe rates of screen detected invasive cancer per 100.000 screened women were 394.0 at first screening, and 229.9 at subsequent screen. The rates of screen detected DCIS per 100.000 screened women were 66.8 at first screen and 43.9 at subsequent screens. No evidence of a change point in trend in the rates of DCIS and invasive cancers over the study period were found. Screen detected DCIS increased at a steady 2.5% per year (95% CI: 1.3; 3.8), while invasive cancers were stable.
conclusionDespite the observed decrease in breast cancer incidence in the population, the rates of screen detected invasive cancer remained stable during the study period. The proportion of DCIS among screen detected breast malignancies increased from 13% to 17% throughout the study period. The rates of screen detected invasive cancer and DCIS were independent of the decreasing trend in HRT use observed among screened women after 2002.
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.