Trial reportBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2014
Twenty five year follow-up for breast cancer incidence and mortality of the Canadian National Breast Screening Study: randomised screening trial.
Trial report in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02324894 (Initial Evaluation of Ultra FAST Breast Magnetic Resonance in Breast Cancer Screening), which is not on this map. Cited by 218 papers, 14 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.
Initial Evaluation of Ultra FAST Breast Magnetic Resonance in Breast Cancer Screening: Comparative Study With Mammography and Ultrasound.
Who cites it
218 citing papers in PubMed, 14 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 695 citations in OpenAlex.
- Noncancer-Related Mortality in Randomized Clinical Trials: A Meta-Analysis.JAMA network open · 2025Pooled it
- Screening for breast cancer: a systematic review update to inform the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care guideline.Systematic reviews · 2024Pooled 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
- Long term absence of invasive breast cancer diagnosis in 2,402,672 pre and postmenopausal women: A systematic review and meta-analysis.PloS one · 2020Pooled it
- "Clicks, likes, shares and comments" a systematic review of breast cancer screening discourse in social media.PloS one · 2020Pooled it
- Recommendations on screening for breast cancer in women aged 40-74 years who are not at increased risk for breast cancer.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2018Guideline
- Assessment of Long-term Follow-up of Randomized Trial Participants by Linkage to Routinely Collected Data: A Scoping Review and Analysis.JAMA network open · 2018Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Meta-analysis of breast cancer mortality benefit and overdiagnosis adjusted for adherence: improving information on the effects of attending screening mammography.British journal of cancer · 2016Pooled it
- Statistical analyses in Swedish randomised trials on mammography screening and in other randomised trials on cancer screening: a systematic review.Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine · 2015Pooled it
- A meta-analysis of mammographic screening with and without clinical breast examination.Cancer science · 2015Pooled it
- Quantifying and monitoring overdiagnosis in cancer screening: a systematic review of methods.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2015Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Trial
- The randomized trial of mammography screening that was not-A cautionary tale.Journal of medical screening · 2022Trial
- Effect of screening by clinical breast examination on breast cancer incidence and mortality after 20 years: prospective, cluster randomised controlled trial in Mumbai.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2021Trial
- Is mammography screening beneficial: An individual-based stochastic model for breast cancer incidence and mortality.PLoS computational biology · 2020Trial
- Clinical breast examination screening by trained laywomen in Malawi integrated with other health services.The Journal of surgical research · 2016Trial
- Trial
158 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 byReply to Kopans.2017
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare breast cancer incidence and mortality up to 25 years in women aged 40-59 who did or did not undergo mammography screening.
designFollow-up of randomised screening trial by centre coordinators, the study's central office, and linkage to cancer registries and vital statistics databases.
setting15 screening centres in six Canadian provinces,1980-85 (Nova Scotia, Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, Alberta, and British Columbia).
participants89,835 women, aged 40-59, randomly assigned to mammography (five annual mammography screens) or control (no mammography).
interventionsWomen aged 40-49 in the mammography arm and all women aged 50-59 in both arms received annual physical breast examinations. Women aged 40-49 in the control arm received a single examination followed by usual care in the community.
main outcome measureDeaths from breast cancer.
resultsDuring the five year screening period, 666 invasive breast cancers were diagnosed in the mammography arm (n=44,925 participants) and 524 in the controls (n=44,910), and of these, 180 women in the mammography arm and 171 women in the control arm died of breast cancer during the 25 year follow-up period. The overall hazard ratio for death from breast cancer diagnosed during the screening period associated with mammography was 1.05 (95% confidence interval 0.85 to 1.30). The findings for women aged 40-49 and 50-59 were almost identical. During the entire study period, 3250 women in the mammography arm and 3133 in the control arm had a diagnosis of breast cancer, and 500 and 505, respectively, died of breast cancer. Thus the cumulative mortality from breast cancer was similar between women in the mammography arm and in the control arm (hazard ratio 0.99, 95% confidence interval 0.88 to 1.12). After 15 years of follow-up a residual excess of 106 cancers was observed in the mammography arm, attributable to over-diagnosis.
conclusionAnnual mammography in women aged 40-59 does not reduce mortality from breast cancer beyond that of physical examination or usual care when adjuvant therapy for breast cancer is freely available. Overall, 22% (106/484) of screen detected invasive breast cancers were over-diagnosed, representing one over-diagnosed breast cancer for every 424 women who received mammography screening in the trial.
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.