Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25362701›Full record

ArticleJournal of the National Cancer Institute2014

A reality check for overdiagnosis estimates associated with breast cancer screening.

Ruth Etzioni, Jing Xia, Rebecca Hubbard, Noel S Weiss, Roman Gulati

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

21 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Shopping for New Cancer Screening Tests.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2023
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Editorial: Challenges in Quantifying Overdiagnosis.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2017
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Beyond the mammography debate: a moderate perspective.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2015
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Ruth EtzioniDivision of Public Health Sciences, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle WA (RE, JX, NSW, RG); Group Health Research Institute, Seattle WA (RH); Department of Epidemiology, University of Washington, Seattle WA (NSW). retzioni@fhcrc.org.
Jing XiaDivision of Public Health Sciences, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle WA (RE, JX, NSW, RG); Group Health Research Institute, Seattle WA (RH); Department of Epidemiology, University of Washington, Seattle WA (NSW).
Rebecca HubbardDivision of Public Health Sciences, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle WA (RE, JX, NSW, RG); Group Health Research Institute, Seattle WA (RH); Department of Epidemiology, University of Washington, Seattle WA (NSW).
Noel S WeissDivision of Public Health Sciences, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle WA (RE, JX, NSW, RG); Group Health Research Institute, Seattle WA (RH); Department of Epidemiology, University of Washington, Seattle WA (NSW).
Roman GulatiDivision of Public Health Sciences, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle WA (RE, JX, NSW, RG); Group Health Research Institute, Seattle WA (RH); Department of Epidemiology, University of Washington, Seattle WA (NSW).

Funding

Modeling prostate cancer control: prevention, screening, treatment, followup careU01CA157224 · NCI · FRED HUTCHINSON CANCER RESEARCH CENTER · PI DE KONING, HARRY J, ETZIONI, RUTH D · 2010 to 2014
$5.3M
Title OmittedK05CA092002 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI WEISS, NOEL S · 2002 to 2013
$1.5M
NCI NIH HHS 2K05CA092002NCI NIH HHS U01CA157224
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The frequency of overdiagnosis associated with breast cancer screening is a topic of controversy. Published estimates vary widely, but identifying which estimates are reliable is challenging. In this article we present an approach that provides a check on these estimates. Our approach leverages the close link between overdiagnosis and lead time by identifying the average lead time most consistent with a given overdiagnosis frequency. We consider a high-profile study that suggested that 31% of breast cancers diagnosed in the United States in 2008 were overdiagnosed and show that this corresponds to an average lead time of about nine years among localized cases. Comparing this estimate with the average lead time for invasive, screen-detected breast cancers of 40 months, around which there is a relative consensus, suggests the published estimate of overdiagnosis is excessive. This approach provides a novel way to appraise estimates of overdiagnosis given knowledge of disease natural history.

Indexed as

Early Detection of CancerMass ScreeningAdultAgedBiasBreast NeoplasmsFemaleHumansIncidenceMammographyMiddle AgedOdds RatioTime FactorsUnited States

Identifiers

PMID25362701
PMCPMC4334796

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.