ArticlePloS one2014
Cost-effectiveness and harm-benefit analyses of risk-based screening strategies for breast cancer.
Article in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02618538 (Predictive Value of Combined Criteria to Tailor Breast Cancer Screening and New Opportunities From Circulating Markers. The Andromeda Study.), which is not on this map. Cited by 84 papers, 8 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.
Predictive Value of Combined Criteria to Tailor Breast Cancer Screening and New Opportunities From Circulating Markers. The Andromeda Study.
Who cites it
84 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Health Economic Evaluations of Breast Cancer Screening Strategies: A Systematic Review Focusing on Methodology and Quality Assessment.Applied health economics and health policy · 2026Pooled it
- Personalizing cancer risk: a systematic review of risk communication strategies.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2026Pooled it
- 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
- Cost effectiveness of breast cancer screening and prevention: a systematic review with a focus on risk-adapted strategies.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2021Pooled it
- Risk prediction models for esophageal cancer: A systematic review and critical appraisal.Cancer medicine · 2021Pooled it
- Personalized breast cancer screening strategies: A systematic review and quality assessment.PloS one · 2019Pooled it
- Simulation modeling for stratified breast cancer screening - a systematic review of cost and quality of life assumptions.BMC health services research · 2017Pooled it
- Assessment of the effects of decision aids about breast cancer screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMJ open · 2017Pooled it
- Trial
- Trial
- Cloud-Based Service Information System for Evaluating Quality of Life after Breast Cancer Surgery.PloS one · 2015Trial
- Breast cancer risk level and prediction of tumor aggressiveness in the Athena Breast Health Network.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2026Article
- Five-Year Absolute Risk-Based and Age-Based Breast Cancer Screening in the US.JAMA network open · 2026Article
- Cost-effectiveness of genetic risk-stratified screening for breast cancer in Taiwan.Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland) · 2025Article
- Subgroups varying in risk and density highlight the potential for stratified breast cancer screening.European journal of cancer (Oxford, England : 1990) · 2025Article
- Attitudes towards risk-stratified breast cancer screening in Denmark - a qualitative study.BMC cancer · 2024Article
- Plasma metabolomics profiles and breast cancer risk.Breast cancer research : BCR · 2024Article
- Screening for Breast Cancer: A Comparative Review of Guidelines.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Article
- Attitudes towards risk-stratified breast cancer screening: a population-based survey among 5,001 Danish women.BMC cancer · 2024Article
24 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
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.
Funding
Abstract
The one-size-fits-all paradigm in organized screening of breast cancer is shifting towards a personalized approach. The present study has two objectives: 1) To perform an economic evaluation and to assess the harm-benefit ratios of screening strategies that vary in their intensity and interval ages based on breast cancer risk; and 2) To estimate the gain in terms of cost and harm reductions using risk-based screening with respect to the usual practice. We used a probabilistic model and input data from Spanish population registries and screening programs, as well as from clinical studies, to estimate the benefit, harm, and costs over time of 2,624 screening strategies, uniform or risk-based. We defined four risk groups, low, moderate-low, moderate-high and high, based on breast density, family history of breast cancer and personal history of breast biopsy. The risk-based strategies were obtained combining the exam periodicity (annual, biennial, triennial and quinquennial), the starting ages (40, 45 and 50 years) and the ending ages (69 and 74 years) in the four risk groups. Incremental cost-effectiveness and harm-benefit ratios were used to select the optimal strategies. Compared to risk-based strategies, the uniform ones result in a much lower benefit for a specific cost. Reductions close to 10% in costs and higher than 20% in false-positive results and overdiagnosed cases were obtained for risk-based strategies. Optimal screening is characterized by quinquennial or triennial periodicities for the low or moderate risk-groups and annual periodicity for the high-risk group. Risk-based strategies can reduce harm and costs. It is necessary to develop accurate measures of individual risk and to work on how to implement risk-based screening strategies.
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.