Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26134996›Full record

Trial reportEuropean radiology2015

Geographic variation in volumetric breast density between screening regions in the Netherlands.

Daniëlle van der Waal, Marleen J Emaus, Marije F Bakker, Gerard J den Heeten, Nico Karssemeijer, Ruud M Pijnappel, Wouter B Veldhuis, André L M Verbeek, Carla H van Gils, Mireille J M Broeders

Open access · hybridAbstract readClinical TrialMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Trial report in European radiology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Mammographic Appearances in Mongolia: Causal Factors for Varying DensitiesAsian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2017
    Article
  7. Observational
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

10 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Daniëlle van der WaalRadboud Institute for Health Sciences (Department for Health Evidence, Mailbox 133), Radboud university medical center, PO Box 9101, 6500 HB, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. Danielle.vanderWaal@radboudumc.nl.
Marleen J EmausJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Marije F BakkerJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Gerard J den HeetenDutch Reference Centre for Screening, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Nico KarssemeijerDepartment of Radiology, Radboud university medical center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Ruud M PijnappelDutch Reference Centre for Screening, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Wouter B VeldhuisDepartment of Radiology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
André L M VerbeekRadboud Institute for Health Sciences (Department for Health Evidence, Mailbox 133), Radboud university medical center, PO Box 9101, 6500 HB, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Carla H van GilsJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Mireille J M BroedersRadboud Institute for Health Sciences (Department for Health Evidence, Mailbox 133), Radboud university medical center, PO Box 9101, 6500 HB, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
University Medical Center Utrecht · NLDutch Expert Centre for Screening · NLRadboud University Medical Center · NLRadboud University Nijmegen · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesDifferences in breast density between populations may explain part of the variation in regional breast cancer screening performance. This study aimed to determine whether regional differences in breast density distribution are present in the Dutch screening population.

methodsAs part of the DENSE trial, mammographic density was measured using a fully-automated volumetric method. The regions in our study were based on the geographic coverage of 14 reading units representing a large part of the Netherlands. General linear models were used.

resultsFour hundred eighty-five thousand and twenty-one screening participants with a median age of 60 years were included (2013-2014). The proportion of women with heterogeneously or extremely dense breasts ranged from 32.5% to 45.7% between regions. Mean percent dense volume varied between 6.51% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 6.46-6.55) and 7.68% (95% CI: 7.66-7.71). Age differences could not explain the variation. Socio-economic status (SES) was positively associated with volumetric density in all analyses (low SES: 6.95% vs. high SES: 7.63%; p trend  < 0.0001), whereas a potential association between urbanisation and breast density only became apparent after SES adjustment.

conclusionThere appears to be geographic variation in mammographic density in the Netherlands, emphasizing the importance of including breast density as parameter in the evaluation of screening performance. KEY POINTS: • Mammographic density may affect regional breast cancer screening performance. • Volumetric breast density varies across screening areas. • SES is positively associated with breast density. • Implications of volumetric breast density differences need to be studied further.

Indexed as

AdultAgedBreastBreast DensityBreast NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansLinear ModelsMammary Glands, HumanMammographyMiddle AgedNetherlandsResidence CharacteristicsBreast cancer screeningDigital mammographyMammographic densitySocio-economic statusUrbanisation

Identifiers

PMID26134996
PMCPMC4595533
OpenAlexW2174010506

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.