Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25891052›Full record

ArticleAmerican journal of preventive medicine2015

Transition from film to digital mammography: impact for breast cancer screening through the national breast and cervical cancer early detection program.

Nicolien T van Ravesteyn, Lisanne van Lier, Clyde B Schechter, Donatus U Ekwueme, Janet Royalty, Jacqueline W Miller, Aimee M Near, Kathleen A Cronin, Eveline A M Heijnsdijk, Jeanne S Mandelblatt and 1 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in American journal of preventive medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 20% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Introduction to the Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET) Breast Cancer Models.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2018
    Article
  11. Structure, Function, and Applications of the Georgetown-Einstein (GE) Breast Cancer Simulation Model.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2018
    Article
  12. 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

11 authors at 7 institutions in 2 countries.

Nicolien T van RavesteynDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Rotterdam. Electronic address: n.vanravesteyn@erasmusmc.nl.
Lisanne van LierDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Rotterdam; Department of General Practice and Elderly Care Medicine, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Clyde B SchechterDepartments of Family & Social Medicine and Epidemiology & Population Health, Albert Einstein School of Medicine, Bronx, New York.
Donatus U EkwuemeCDC, Atlanta, Georgia.
Janet RoyaltyCDC, Atlanta, Georgia.
Jacqueline W MillerCDC, Atlanta, Georgia.
Aimee M NearDepartment of Oncology, Georgetown University, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington, District of Columbia.
Kathleen A CroninStatistical Research and Application Branch, Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, NIH, Bethesda, Maryland.
Eveline A M HeijnsdijkDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Rotterdam.
Jeanne S MandelblattDepartment of Oncology, Georgetown University, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington, District of Columbia.
Harry J de KoningDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Rotterdam.
CDC Foundation · USErasmus University Rotterdam · NLGeorgetown University Medical Center · USAlbert Einstein College of Medicine · USAmsterdam UMC Location VUmc · NLErasmus MC · NLNational Cancer Institute · US

Funding

Comparative Modeling: Informing Breast Cancer Control Practice & PolicyU01CA152958 · NCI · GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY · PI BERRY, DONALD A, DE KONING, HARRY J · 2010 to 2015
$7.6M
OUTCOMES ACROSS THE SPECTRUM OF BREAST CANCER CAREU01CA088283 · NCI · GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY · PI MANDELBLATT, JEANNE · 2000 to 2010
$2.6M
Cancer Control at the Intersection of Aging ResearchK05CA096940 · NCI · GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY · PI MANDELBLATT, JEANNE · 2002 to 2011
$1.5M
NCI NIH HHS HHSN261201100031CNCI NIH HHS K05 CA096940NCI NIH HHS KO5CA96940NCI NIH HHS U01 CA088283NCI NIH HHS U01CA088283NCI NIH HHS U01CA115337-10S1NCI NIH HHS U01 CA152958NCI NIH HHS U01CA152958
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program (NBCCEDP) provides mammograms and diagnostic services for low-income, uninsured women aged 40-64 years. Mammography facilities within the NBCCEDP gradually shifted from plain-film to digital mammography. The purpose of this study is to assess the impact of replacing film with digital mammography on health effects (deaths averted, life-years gained [LYG]); costs (for screening and diagnostics); and number of women reached.

methodsNBCCEDP 2010 data and data representative of the program's target population were used in two established microsimulation models. Models simulated observed screening behavior including different screening intervals (annual, biennial, irregular) and starting ages (40, 50 years) for white, black, and Hispanic women. Model runs were performed in 2012.

resultsThe models predicted 8.0-8.3 LYG per 1,000 film screens for black women, 5.9-7.5 for white women, and 4.0-4.5 for Hispanic women. For all race/ethnicity groups, digital mammography had more LYG than film mammography (2%-4%), but had higher costs (34%-35%). Assuming a fixed budget, 25%-26% fewer women could be served, resulting in 22%-24% fewer LYG if all mammograms were converted to digital. The loss in LYG could be reversed to an 8%-13% increase by only including biennial screening.

conclusionsDigital could result in slightly more LYG than film mammography. However, with a fixed budget, fewer women may be served with fewer LYG. Changes in the program, such as only including biennial screening, will increase LYG/screen and could offset the potential decrease in LYG when shifting to digital mammography.

Indexed as

Diagnosis, Computer-AssistedDiffusion of InnovationEarly Detection of CancerAdultBreast NeoplasmsDatabases, FactualFemaleHumansMammographyMass ScreeningMiddle Aged

Identifiers

PMID25891052
PMCPMC4405659
OpenAlexW1967315733

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.