Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24800915›Full record

ArticleBreast cancer research and treatment2014

Accuracy of screening mammography in women with a history of lobular carcinoma in situ or atypical hyperplasia of the breast.

Nehmat Houssami, Linn A Abraham, Tracy Onega, Laura C Collins, Brian L Sprague, Deirdre A Hill, Diana L Miglioretti

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Breast cancer research and treatment, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 22% 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Screening of Breast Cancer.Radiologic clinics of North America · 2021
    Review
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 7 institutions in 2 countries.

Nehmat HoussamiScreening and Test Evaluation Program, School of Public Health, Sydney Medical School, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, 2006, Australia, nehmath@med.usyd.edu.au.
Linn A Abraham
Tracy Onega
Laura C Collins
Brian L Sprague
Deirdre A Hill
Diana L Miglioretti
Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice · USGroup Health Cooperative · USHarvard University · USUniversity of California, Davis · USUniversity of New Mexico · USUniversity of Sydney · AUVermont Department of Health · US

Funding

Staff InvestigatorsP30CA093373 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA DAVIS · PI PRIMO N. LARA · 2002 to 2026
$84.9M
Risk-based Imaging Strategies to Improve Breast Cancer Surveillance OutcomesP01CA154292 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT DAVIS · PI Diana L Miglioretti · 2011 to 2026
$52.9M
NCI NIH HHS P01 CA154292NCI NIH HHS P01CA154292NCI NIH HHS P30 CA093373
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Women with lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS), atypical lobular hyperplasia (ALH), atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH), or atypical hyperplasia (AH) are at increased breast cancer (BC) risk. We investigated the accuracy and outcomes of mammography screening in women with histology-proven LCIS, ALH, ADH, or AH history who had screening through Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium-affiliated mammography facilities. Screens from two cohorts, defined by LCIS/ALH or ADH/AH history, were compared to two cohorts without such history mammogram-matched for age-group, breast density, family history, screen-year, and mammography registry. Overall 359 BCs (277 invasive BC) occurred within 1 year from screening among 52,380 screens. In the LCIS/ALH cohort [versus comparator screens] cancer incidence rates, cancer detection rates (CDR), and interval cancer rates (ICR) were significantly higher (all P < 0.001); although ICR was 4.4/1,000 screens [versus 0.9/1,000; P < 0.001] the proportion that were interval cancers did not differ between compared cohorts (P = 0.43); screening sensitivity was 76.1 % [versus 82.3 %; P = 0.43], however, specificity was significantly lower at 85.1 % [versus 90.7 %; P < 0.0001]. In the ADH/AH cohort [versus comparator] cancer rates and CDR were significantly higher (P < 0.001); although ICR was 2.6/1,000 screens [versus 0.9/1,000; P = 0.002] the proportion that were interval cancers did not differ between cohorts (P = 0.74); screening sensitivity was 81.0 % [versus 82.6 %; P = 0.74] and specificity was lower at 86.2 % [versus 90.2 %; P < 0.0001]. Mammography screening sensitivity in LCIS/ALH and ADH/AH cohorts did not significantly differ from that of matched screens, however, specificity was lower, and ICRs were higher (reflecting underlying cancer rates). Adjunct screening may be of value in these women if it reduces ICR without substantially reducing specificity.

Indexed as

Early Detection of CancerAdultAgedAged, 80 and overBreastBreast NeoplasmsCarcinoma, LobularDiagnostic ErrorsFemaleHumansHyperplasiaMammographyMiddle AgedPrecancerous ConditionsYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID24800915
PMCPMC4111461
OpenAlexW2000724632

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.