Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25787716›Full record

ArticleCancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology2015

The contribution of mammography screening to breast cancer incidence trends in the United States: an updated age-period-cohort model.

Ronald E Gangnon, Brian L Sprague, Natasha K Stout, Oguz Alagoz, Harald Weedon-Fekjær, Theodore R Holford, Amy Trentham-Dietz

Open access · greenAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 55 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
55citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.9field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

55 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 75 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Trends in Female Breast Cancer Incidence among Japanese, Korean, and US Populations: An Age-Period-Cohort Analysis.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Observational
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Population simulation modeling of disparities in US breast cancer mortality.Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Monographs · 2023
    Article
  20. Article
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.

Ronald E GangnonDepartment of Biostatistics and Medical Informatics, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin. Department of Population Health Sciences, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin. Carbone Cancer Center, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin.
Brian L SpragueDepartment of Surgery and Vermont Cancer Center, University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont.
Natasha K StoutDepartment of Population Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Oguz AlagozCarbone Cancer Center, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin. Department of Industrial and System Engineering, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin.
Harald Weedon-FekjærOslo Center for Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Research Support Services, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Theodore R HolfordYale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut.
Amy Trentham-DietzDepartment of Population Health Sciences, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin. Carbone Cancer Center, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin. trentham@wisc.edu.
Harvard University · USOslo University Hospital · NOUniversity of New Haven · USUniversity of Vermont · USUniversity of Wisconsin Carbone Cancer Center · USUniversity of Wisconsin–Madison · USUniversity of Wisconsin System · US

Funding

UW COMPREHENSIVE CANCER CENTER SUPPORTP30CA014520 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON · PI Nihal Ahmad · 1985 to 2026
$142.6M
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
Comparative Modeling: Informing Breast Cancer Control Practice & PolicyU01CA152958 · NCI · GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY · PI BERRY, DONALD A, DE KONING, HARRY J · 2010 to 2015
$7.6M
NCI NIH HHS P01 CA154292NCI NIH HHS P30 CA014520NCI NIH HHS P50 CA014520NCI NIH HHS U01 CA152958
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe impact of screening mammography on breast cancer incidence is difficult to disentangle from cohort- and age-related effects on incidence.

methodsWe developed an age-period-cohort model of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) and invasive breast cancer incidence in U.S. females using cancer registry data. Five functions were included in the model to estimate stage-specific effects for age, premenopausal birth cohorts, postmenopausal birth cohorts, period (for all years of diagnosis), and a mammography period effect limited to women ages ≥ 40 years after 1982. Incidence with and without the mammography period effect was calculated.

resultsMore recent birth cohorts have elevated underlying risk compared with earlier cohorts for both pre- and postmenopausal women. Comparing models with and without the mammography period effect showed that overall breast cancer incidence would have been 23.1% lower in the absence of mammography in 2010 (95% confidence intervals, 18.8-27.4), including 14.7% (9.5-19.3) lower for invasive breast cancer and 54.5% (47.4-59.6) lower for DCIS. Incidence of distant-staged breast cancer in 2010 would have been 29.0% (13.1-48.1) greater in the absence of mammography screening.

conclusionsMammography contributes to markedly elevated rates of DCIS and early-stage invasive cancers, but also contributes to substantial reductions in the incidence of metastatic breast cancer. IMPACT: Mammography is an important tool for reducing the burden of breast cancer, but future work is needed to identify risk factors accounting for increasing underlying incidence and to distinguish between indolent and potentially lethal early-stage breast cancers that are detected via mammography.

Indexed as

Early Detection of CancerModels, StatisticalAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAge FactorsBreast NeoplasmsCarcinoma, Ductal, BreastCarcinoma, Intraductal, NoninfiltratingCohort StudiesFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansMammographyMiddle AgedNeoplasm Staging

Identifiers

PMID25787716
PMCPMC4489135
OpenAlexW1965123245

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.