Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25537958›Full record

ArticleCancer2015

Performance of digital screening mammography among older women in the United States.

Louise M Henderson, Ellen S O'Meara, Dejana Braithwaite, Tracy Onega, Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium

Open access · bronzeAbstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 16% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Decision-Making Regarding Mammography Screening for Older Women.Journal of the American Geriatrics Society · 2016
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Breast Cancer Screening in Older Women: The Importance of Shared Decision Making.Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine : JABFM
    Review
  10. 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

5 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Louise M HendersonDepartment of Radiology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Ellen S O'Meara
Dejana Braithwaite
Tracy Onega
Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium
Dartmouth College · USKaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute · USUniversity of California, San Francisco · USUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill · US

Funding

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
Vermont Screening Process Documentation UnitU54CA163303 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT & ST AGRIC COLLEGE · PI SPRAGUE, BRIAN L · 2011 to 2017
$6.4M
NCI NIH HHS HHSN261201100031CNCI NIH HHS P01 CA154292NCI NIH HHS P01CA154292NCI NIH HHS U54 CA163303PHS HHS HHSN261201100031C
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAlthough healthy women aged 65 years have a life expectancy of 20 years, there is a paucity of data on the performance of digital screening mammography among these women. The authors examined the performance and outcomes of digital screening mammography among a national group of women aged ≥65 years.

methodsFrom Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium data for the years 2005 to 2011, the authors included 296,496 full-field digital screening mammograms among 133,042 women ages ≥65 years without a history of breast cancer. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV1 ), recall rates, and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were calculated across the spectrum of age and breast density. Multivariate logistic regression was used to compare mammography accuracy, cancer-detection rates (CDRs), and tumor characteristics by age and breast density.

resultsMultivariate analyses revealed a significant decrease in the recall rate with age (P for linear trend [Ptrend ] < .001) and significant increases in specificity, PPV1 , and CDR with age (Ptrend  < .001, Ptrend  < .001, and Ptrend  = .01, respectively). Sensitivity did not vary significantly with age. Among women with cancer, the proportion with invasive disease increased with age from 76% at ages 65 to 74 years to 81% at ages ≥80 years. There was a higher proportion of late stage cancers and positive lymph nodes among women ages 65 to 74 years compared with women in the older age groups.

conclusionsThe specificity, PPV1 , recall rate, and CDR of digital screening mammography improved with increased age. In addition, as age increased, the proportion of women with invasive versus ductal carcinoma in situ rose, whereas the proportion of women with positive lymph nodes decreased.

Indexed as

AgedAged, 80 and overBreast NeoplasmsCarcinoma, Ductal, BreastCarcinoma, Intraductal, NoninfiltratingEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansMammographyPredictive Value of TestsProspective StudiesRadiographic Image EnhancementUnited Statesbreast cancercancer-detection ratedigital mammographyolder womenpositive predictive valuescreeningsensitivityspecificity

Identifiers

PMID25537958
PMCPMC4409463
OpenAlexW1488546782

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.